Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Birmingham Canal Bill.

Guildford Gas and Electricity Bill. Bills committed.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I have been asked by the trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the trustees, and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the abovementioned sums, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with the Prayer:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]
Referred to the Committee of Supply.

NEW WRIT.

For County of Fermanagh and Tyrone in the room of Thomas James Stanislaus Harbison, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Delvin.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the steps the Government are taking generally in relation to industrial reorganisation, including the establishment of new industries in the heavy industrial areas?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As regards industrial reorganisation generally, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement which I made in Debate on the 5th November last, when I indicated the lines of policy which the Government are pursuing. I would also refer him to Command Paper 3746, issued in December last, which contains a statement of the steps which the Government are taking in regard to economic reorganisation. As regards the latter part of the question, the Government, through my Department, are in close co-operation with the efforts which are being made in certain industrial areas to attract new industrial development to those areas.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose at any time to make a statement to the House as to what has actually been achieved?

Mr. GRAHAM: I indicated previously that no doubt, during some of our debates, either on the Estimates or on some other appropriate occasion, I shall be able to give to the House such information as is available.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the problem of industrial reorganisation which has to be faced in the near future, he can state the particular industries which, in the view of the Government, require industrial reorganization?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is only in a minority of industries that substantial progress in rationalisation has been made. I fear I could not attempt to catalogue industries according to their need of reorganisation.

Mr. SMITH: To what specific industries did the right hon. Gentleman refer when he recently made a statement that certain industries required reorganisation?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is true, for example, of coal, cotton, iron and steel.

TARIFFS.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has been received from France in reply to the note from the British Government that the tariff on certain British imports into France should be lowered?

Lieut.-Colonel. Sir FREDERICK HALL: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any replies have yet been received to the communications sent to the Governments of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland and Switzerland suggesting a reduction of 25 per cent. in tariffs on certain classes of British manufactured goods; and if he will state whether a favourable response to the proposal has been given by any of the countries in question?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The communications in question were sent quite recently, and no replies have yet been received.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of placing a tariff on imports from France, in order that we may have something to bargain with in negotiating with France?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; I am afraid I could not promise that, even if it arose out of the questions on the Paper.

Sir F. HALL: With regard to my question No. 25, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Governments referred to have received with a certain amount of hilarity the suggestions which emanated from him?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 5 and 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will make a statement as to the request of His Majesty's Government to the German Government to make a reduction in the German customs duty on certain British manufactured goods; and what compensation, if any, has been offered to the German Government in return for such a reduction;
(2) whether he will make a statement as to the request of His Majesty's Government to the French Government to make a reduction in the French customs duty on certain British manufactures; and what inducement, if any, has been offered to the French Government to make such a reduction?

Mr. GRAHAM: As regards the first part of each of these questions, I can add nothing to the replies given on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), and on Wednesday to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass). As regards the second part of each question, no offer of compensation has been made to either Government. They have, however, been informed that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider such suggestions as they make have to make.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the report that the compensation offered is a continuance of the present liberal British import system?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have not heard of any statement to that effect.

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any indication through diplomatic channels that these proposals are being given serious consideration by the French and German Governments?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have not the least doubt that they will be seriously considered by those Governments.

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information?

Mr. GRAHAM: They were only addressed to them a few days ago.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the tonnage of iron and steel imported into this country during last year; and the tonnage of iron and steel exported from this country during the same period?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As stated in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December last, the total quantity of
goods classed as "Iron and Steel and Manufactures thereof" imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1930 was 2,908,347 tons, while the quantity exported was 3,170,249 tons, of which 12,324 tons consisted of imported merchandise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do not the Government intend to do anything, in view of the large number of men who are out of employment in our steel industry, to prevent this £2,000,000 of British money from going abroad to give employment in Belgium and elsewhere?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is quite impossible to deal with that matter in reply to a supplementary question, but a very large quantity of these imports consists of raw materials for other industries.

Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the later months of last year and the earlier months of this year, we were importing more steel and iron goods than we exported?

Mr. GRAHAM: Speaking from memory, I think there was a period when that was true, but, taking the year 1930 as a whole, the exports exceeded the imports, and, of course, the value was very much greater. The exports were worth £51,500,000, as against a value of about £23,000,000 of imports.

ITALY AND RUSSIA (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Sir K. WOOD: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to give any information concerning the trade agreement recently signed between Russia and Italy; and whether any of its terms provide that there shall be an exchange of goods between the two countries to an agreed amount?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The text of the treaty has not yet been made public, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give any information on the subject.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to whether the treaty will be published?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir; I think I indicated, in reply to previous questions, that inquiry had been made; but this is really a matter for the two Govern-
ments concerned, and, until the treaty is published, I cannot, of course, say anything about it.

Commander BELLAIRS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean merely that he has no official information? Has he no information other than official information, seeing that this treaty was made months ago?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I can only deal with the matter that is officially available from the Governments concerned.

PILCHARDS (IMPORT DUTY, ITALY).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the result of his further inquiries with regard to the question of the Italian import duty on pilchards from this country?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I came to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by approaching the Italian Government on the subject at the time of the hon. Member's previous question. The matter has not been overlooked, however, and I will take advantage of any favourable opportunity to have the question raised with the Italian Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great importance of this question to a great Cornish industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir; that question has been before me previously, and I can only renew my promise to my hon. Friend to take this chance whenever I think it is right to approach the Italian Government.

RUSSIA.

Sir K. WOOD: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received any report from the Economic Committee of the League of Nations as to their investigations into dumping by Soviet Russia; and whether he has any information to give the House on the matter?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am not aware of any investigation by the Economic Committee of the League into the specific question of dumping by Soviet Russia. The committee, I understand, were considering the general question of dumping, bounties and subsidies at a session
last week, but I have not yet received any information in regard to the proceedings.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be receiving some information on this matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not, of course, sure of that, but I imagine that we shall get details of what takes place.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last few days a considerable quantity of Scottish herrings was sold to Russia at considerably less than cost price?

Mr. GRACE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that consignments of soap manufactured in Russia by slave labour have now reached this country and are being sold at prices which manufacturers in this country cannot compete with; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to assist this industry?

Mr. MILLS: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this question does not contravene the Standing Orders of this House as regards the inaccuracies contained in it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see anything out of order in it.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 34,339 cwts. of hard soap were registered as imported into the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union during the 12 months ended 31st December last. The declared value of this soap was £45,666, or an average of £1 6s. 7d. per cwt., but I have no information as to the actual price at which any of the soap was sold in this country. None has been imported during January last. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which was given to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 10th February.

Mr. GRACE: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to wake up to realise the danger to the trade of the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: Questions are put down to obtain information and for nothing else.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement contained in the question that this soap is produced by compulsory labour?

Mr. SPEAKER: The point raised by the hon. Member has already been dealt with.

>Mr. HAYCOCK: May I be allowed to put down a question concerning the products of other countries and make similar allegations and get the question passed at the Table?

Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member submits his question, we will see whether it is in order.

Major COLVILLE: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity of soft fruit pulp imported from Russia during the years 1929 and 1930?

Mr. GRAHAM: During the years 1929 and 1930 no imports of fruit pulp in syrup into the United Kingdom were registered as consigned from Russia. Fruit pulp of other kinds would be included under the general heading of fruit not liable to duty as such, preserved without sugar, other than canned or bottled. Under this head the imports from Russia during 1929 were 44,767 cwts., valued at £85,202 but how much of this was fruit pulp cannot be stated. The corresponding figures for 1930 are not available.

Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do anything to deal with this menace to the British fruit growing industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: That question is like all the others. It suggests some embargo or restriction. My object is to promote trade and not to destroy it.

Mr. PALMER: Who are the people responsible for purchasing these goods?

Sir F. HALL: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any timber has been imported into this country during the last 18 months from the following districts of Russia, namely, the Kola peninsula, including the M[...]rman coast, the Karelian northern areas of Russia, and Zyryani?

Mr. GRAHAM: I regret that the desired information is not available as imports from different districts in the Soviet Union are not separately recorded.

Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible to obtain this information in view of the fact that imports from these districts have been refused in the United States because of having been produced by convict labour?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Before that question is answered, may I ask whether, after full investigation, the embargo has not been lifted?

Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the second supplementary question, I think that some time ago that embargo was lifted. As regards the third supplementary question, I feel that I cannot promise to try to separate the imports from any country into the different districts within that country. That would involve a very great deal of labour, and I do not think that it would be justified by the results.

Mr. JAMES C. WELSH (Coatbridge): 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of maize starch imported into this country for the past three years from Russia; and if there is any evidence that it is being sold at a price below the cost of production?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total imports into the United Kingdom of maize starch, not for edible purposes, registered as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia) amounted to 1,640 cwts. in 1928, 4 cwts. in 1929, and 24,245 cwts. in 1930, the average declared value in 1930 being 10s. 7d. per cwt. Provision was first made in 1930 for the separate enumeration in the trade returns of maize starch for edible purposes, and in that year the recorded imports from the Soviet Union amounted to 24,873 cwts. of an average declared value of 9s. 5d. per cwt. I have no information as to the cost of production of maize starch in the Soviet Union.

Major The Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Arising out of that answer—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. [Interruption.] I ask you, Sir, is it in order whenever I get up to ask a supplementary question for hon. Members to roar at me like that?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the Noble Lord was being received with applause.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what has been the cost of this commodity in blood and misery?

PRINTING MACHINES (EXPORTS).

Mr. ALBERY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the declared value of newspaper, letterpress and lithographic machines, and parts thereof, exported from the United Kingdom during the last three years?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer) of which I am sending him a copy.

TRADE RETURNS.

Major NATHAN: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when Part II of the statistical tables relating to British and foreign trade and industry will be published?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is hoped to publish this volume before Easter.

OIL MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what reasons exist for the delay in the delivery of the standard measures required for the work of verifying petrol and oil measuring instruments; what steps have been taken to expedite delivery; and when it is anticipated that the work of verification can be commenced?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The delay referred to was due to certain unexpected technical difficulties which arose. These have now been overcome and of the 1,540 standards submitted to the Department for verification 1,337 have been passed as correct.

PATENTS.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report from the committee which has been considering the law relating to patents?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that this committee expects to report in a few weeks' time.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. HACKING: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to resume his meetings with the various sections of the cotton industry in connection with the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of the industry?

Mr. REMER: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has been conducting any further negotiations with those interested in the cotton industry as to the reorganisation of that industry; and if he is prepared to state the nature of these negotiations?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It was not felt that the discussions with the various sections of the cotton industry could be profitably pursued while the recent dispute was in progress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have during the last week had a conference with representatives of the joint committee of Cotton Trade Organisations and discussed the position with them. The future course of action is now under consideration.

Mr. HACKING: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken full advantage of the opportunity that has been presented to him during the last two hours to learn something more about the industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: If by that the right hon. Gentleman means the honour of being presented to the "Cotton Queen," that is certainly true.

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps, if any, have been taken to eliminate the unnecessary number of middlemen from the cotton industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is bound up with the discussions which we are having with the different sections of the trade, and I am afraid that it would be quite impossible, in reply to a supplementary question, to give details of the various plans.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If in the course of the investigations it is found that they can do without the middlemen, and these middlemen are displaced, will the same treatment be meted out to them as is meted out to workmen displaced by disarmament and rationalisation?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid it is quite impossible to give my hon. Friend details of the proposals which are being made. It will require a very great deal of explanation which I cannot possibly attempt to give in reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into details of this question now.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUNARD INSURANCE (AGREEMENT) ACT.

Mr. ALBERY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the construction risk of the new Cunarder is still uninsured in the market; and whether the Treasury is now responsible for the whole or what portion of the risk?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The position is still the same as stated in the reply given to the hon. Member on Tuesday last by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Mr. ALBERY: Seeing that this keel was laid down some weeks ago, why are these risks of construction still uncovered?

Mr. GRAHAM: That, of course, is really a matter for the Cunard Company and the builders. The Government only come into the picture when the market has been exhausted as regards the amount of insurance taken up. No application has yet been made to the Government.

Sir F. HALL: May we take it that at present the Government have not accepted any risk in the event of any accident happening?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, it is too early in the day for that. After all, the initial steps must be taken by the Cunard Company and the builders.

Mr. ALBERY: Will this unusual delay in covering the risk affect the position of the Government eventually?

Mr. GRAHAM: That would be very difficult to tell. To-day it seems very far off. It is still my hope that a very large part of this insurance will be effected in the ordinary way in the market.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD PRICES.

Major NATHAN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, though the price of wheat is now below the pre-War level, the price of bread is still considerably higher than the pre-War price; and whether the Food Council is investigating the matter?

Mr. MORLEY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department proposes to take in view of the threatened increase in the price of bread?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ascertain from the Food Council why the price of bread has been increased to 7d. per quartern loaf?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The price of bread does not depend solely on the price of wheat. Account must be taken, for example, of the costs of milling and baking which are higher than before 1914. The present rise in London follows an increase in the price of flour in accordance with the scale adopted by the London bakers in April last. The price is ½d. per 4 lb. loaf higher than it would have been on the scale previously adopted, which was approved by the Food Council. The Council are investigating the reasonableness of the new scale.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

Mr. EDE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether accounts and balance sheets of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company were lodged at Somerset House for the years 1926 to 1929; and whether they were certified as correct by auditors?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This company is not registered under the Companies Acts but, in accordance with the provisions of its charters, it lodges annually with the Board of Trade particulars in the same form as those required from registered companies, including a copy of the balance sheet. The balance sheets for the years 1926 to 1929 were accompanied by auditor's reports in the customary form to the effect that, subject to the observations in the report, the balance sheet was in the auditors' opinion properly drawn up so as to exhibit a true
and correct view of the state of the company's affairs as shown by the books of the company.

Mr. EDE: Has my right hon. Friend any responsibility with regard to the correctness of these accounts and certificates? Ought he to take any action if they are proved not to have been certified?

Mr. GRAHAM: No. This is not within the Companies Acts and I have no statutory powers. The remedy really lies with the shareholders, in view of the auditors' report.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the accounts and balance sheets of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company and/or any of its associated concerns were lodged with the Trade Facilities Committee when applications for guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act were granted in 1923 and 1926 to any of such companies upon loans amounting to £5,400,000; and whether such accounts and balance sheets were certified as correct by auditors?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I am informed that it was the practice of the Trade Facilities Committee to require to be furnished with the audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of companies applying for assistance under the Trade Facilities Acts; and this practice was followed on applications by the subsidiary and associated companies of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. No direct loan was ever made under the Trade Facilities Acts to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company; but in respect of loans of £1,135,886 made early in 1923 under the Trade Facilities Acts to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Meat Transports, Limited—a separate company, whose share capital is owned entirely by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company—specific mortgages were taken on ships owned by the borrowing company and the specific security for the loan was supplemented by a guarantee as to principal and interest given by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. The balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company issued to the shareholders and reported on by the company's auditors were produced to the Committee to the 31st
December, 1921, as well as an approximate balance sheet and profit and loss account to the 31st December, 1922, prepared by the company's officials. This is the only occasion when the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company assumed any obligation in connection with Trade Facilities Loans.

Mr. LAMBERT: When these Trade Facilities advances are made to companies, do the Treasury keep track of the balance-sheets, and ascertain if those balance-sheets are properly prepared and presented?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Trade Facilities arrangements have ceased—that no fresh arrangements are being made—but, of course, the Treasury keep carefully in touch with the situation as regards all those companies, in connection with which guarantees have been made in the past.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what has been the loss to the country in respect of this advance?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There has been no loss to date in this matter.

Mr. WISE: In view of the very great importance of this matter, industrially and financially, will the hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of a committee to examine into and report upon this example of private enterprise?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN ARMY (STRENGTH).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War the present numerical strength of the Soviet Army, including reserves; and whether such strength has increased during the last year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the League of Nations Armaments Year Book. As regards the second part, I have no information that the strength has increased during the last year.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures from the book to which he refers?

Captain EDEN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a book which is not available to Members of Parliament?

Mr. SHAW: I understand that a copy of this book is in the Library, and further, it is the best work of reference in the War Office on the subject, and I try to give hon. Members the best information I can.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. Am I to understand that I cannot get an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a full answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

BARRACKS (ALDERSEHOT COMMAND).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many barracks in the Aldershot Command are now condemned; and what is the minimum cubic feel allowance per man?

Mr. SHAW: There are no barracks in the Aldershot Command which have been condemned. The minimum cubic space allowed for British troops at Home stations is 600 cubic feet a man.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Having in view the outbreak of cerebro-spinal meningitis, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the minimum space is adequate under modern conditions?

Mr. SHAW: I am answering a question on cerebro-spinal meningitis later, but I have no information that this cubic space is not sufficient, or that it has any connection whatever with the disease mentioned.

CEREBRO-SPINAL MENINGITIS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to combat the outbreak of cerebro-spinal meningitis in the Army; whether he is acting in concert with the civil authorities; and what investigations as to the cause of this disease are being made?

Mr. SHAW: As regards the first part of the question, the usual precautions have been taken throughout the Army with regard to ventilation and prevention
of overcrowding. Carriers are being searched for and immediate and remote contacts are being watched. In Aldershot, where rather special conditions obtain, special orders have been issued reducing indoor gatherings to a minimum. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the type of prevalent organism is studied in the laboratory by the Army pathologists, who work in cooperation with the pathologists of the Navy, Air Force and Ministry of Health.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that the average percentage of cerebro-spinal meningitis is higher in the Army, than in the civil population; and if the question of the type of barrack-room is being investigated in this connection?

Mr. SHAW: In the ease of England and Wales, as shown in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on 17th November last, the published figures for the civil population show a smaller ratio a thousand for this disease than is shown for the troops. As regards Scotland the reverse is the case. But I am not sure that the figures are on a strictly comparable basis, and for Scotland, so far as the civil population is concerned, they only apply to two counties and certain large towns. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that the incidence of the disease is so spread that there are no grounds for connecting it with any particular type of barrack room.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Having in view the statement made by the Minister of Health that it is due to overcrowding, will the right hon. Gentleman pursue investigations on the terms of the last part of my question's?

Mr. SHAW: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have taken his question into consideration, and I will pursue investigations.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the percentage in each rank which has been affected so as to show whether the sergeants, as compared with privates and corporals, are affected less than those in the more crowded parts of the barracks?

Mr. SHAW: I am extremely anxious to get all the information possible on these matters, and I will also make inquiries with regard to that particular question.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. HACKING: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what, steps are taken by the War Office to obtain employment for discharged soldiers when re-entering civil life?

Mr. SHAW: The War Office is fully alive to the desirability of fitting the soldier for return to civil life and of helping him to secure employment when he does so. It is difficult to deal with this subject within the limits of an oral answer, but I am sending the right hon. Member a copy of the "Guide to Civil Employment for Regular Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen" and a pamphlet on "Army Vocational Training" which will show generally what is being done in the matter. I would add that I am personally keenly interested in the question and am always ready to consider suggestions for increasing the soldier's chances of civil employment. I hope also to refer to the subject in my speech on the introduction of Army Estimates.

Mr. HACKING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not, when he is asking for recruits, the men are made aware of the fact that they will be helped to get civil employment when they leave the Army?

Mr. SHAW: Yes. Full particulars are given in the recruiting documents and by the recruiters, as to what is taking place and what the possibilities are?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the War Office information as to the employment that is found afterwards for the ex-Service men?

Mr. SHAW: Yes. We have complete figures how the men are placed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL OF ART, DUNDEE).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Educational Endowment Commissioners have had submitted to them from
the Duncan of Jordanstone Trustees a scheme for the erection of a school of art in Dundee?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I understand that the Duncan of Jordan-stone Trustees have asked the Educational Endowment Commissioners to sanction the erection of the two north-most blocks of the school which they propose to build and that the commissioners have given their consent.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Have any representations been made as to the unsuitability of the site?

Mr. ADAMSON: No.

HOUSING.

Miss LEE: 33 and 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number and percentage of the population of Lanarkshire living in one- or two-roomed houses;
(2) the number and percentage of the population of Lanarkshire who in 1920 were living in one- or two-roomed houses?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The only available information on this sub-

Distribution of Population in One- and Two-roomed Houses in Lanarkshire.


Lanarkshire (Year 1921).
One-roomed Houses.
Two-roomed Houses.


Number of Persons.
Percentage of Population.
Number of Persons.
Percentage of Population.


Entire county (including City of Glasgow and all Burghs).
219,291
14.2
765,926
49.7


Landward area (excluding City of Glasgow and all Burghs).
46,615
15.0
145,978
49.3

Mr. BROOKE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received from the county council of Dumbarton a copy of the survey required by the Housing Act if he will state how many houses are inhabited but unfit for human habitation; and how many houses the county council propose to build within the next three years to meet the deficiency?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The statement required by Sub-section 2 of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, has
ject is contained in the Census Returns and refers to the year 1921. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving this information. Comparative figures for the year 1931 will be available as a result of the forthcoming Census.

Mr. BARR: Can the hon. Member give, in addition to the whole of Lanarkshire, some of the principal towns in Lanarkshire? I understand that the figures are available in the census.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will consider whether that is possible.

Mr. TRAIN: May I ask if the figures include the two-room so-called houses built under the Wheatley Act, which have a kitchenette and a bathroom?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No, Sir. The figures refer to the census of 1921.

Mr. McKINLAY: Can the hon. Member give us the proportion of houses which are of the single type and the two-apartment house?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Speaking roughly, at a time of the last census two-thirds of the entire population of Lanarkshire were housed in houses of not more than two apartments.

Following is the statement:

been received from the county council of Dumbarton. The statement shows that the estimated number of houses required to replace houses that are unfit for human habitation is 320. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that the county council have not yet definitely decided as to the total number of houses which they propose to build within the next three years to meet the requirements of their area. Meantime, they propose to proceed with the erection of 395 houses within that period,
of which 276 are to replace houses that are unfit for human habitation, the remainder being to abate overcrowding.

Sir PATRICK FORD: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint lodged on 21st January, 1931, by the Scottish National Operative Plasterers' Federal Union, Edinburgh district, with the Secretary of the Department of Health for Scotland in Edinburgh, regarding the Edinburgh Corporation Niddrie Mains housing scheme; whether, seeing that this complaint avers in detail that the plaster work in general was not being done in a tradesmanlike manner nor in accordance with the specification issued by the town council and the general specification issued by the Department, and that this statement of complaint was furnished at the request of the Department, he will say when the complaint will receive attention; and whether any official action will in fact he taken?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The complaint referred to was received on the 22nd January following a meeting on the 15th January between representatives of the union mentioned and of the Department of Health for Scotland. The Department communicated the terms of the complaint to the corporation and are now awaiting their observations thereon. On receipt of these observations the Department will consider what further action should be taken.

Sir P. FORD: Can the hon. Member give us some indication when these people are likely to get a reply?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The matter was before the Public Health Committee of the corporation in a discussion with their architect. I understand that they are awaiting a report from the architect, and they have promised to communicate then.

FOREIGN TRAWLERS, MORAY FIRTH (COD-NETS).

Major WOOD: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that further great destruction has just been caused to cod-nets by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth; whether he has made inquiries into the extent of the damage and the circumstances under which it was
committed; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take to prevent the continual recurrence of such losses?

Mr. ADAMSON: My attention has been drawn to this matter. Inquiries are in progress as to the extent of the damage, and as to the circumstances in which it occurred. All possible steps have been taken by the Departments concerned to deal with the matter. Some time ago the Belgian and Netherland Governments were asked to advise their trawlers to take precautions to avoid the cod-nets, and the Foreign Office have been informed that steps have been taken by the respective Governments for that purpose. As the hon. Member is aware, the Fishery Board for Scotland recently issued a special circular to the owners of all the cod-net vessels calling attention to the measures which they should take for reducing the risk of damage and for reporting particulars of any losses sustained. His Majesty's Ship "Spey" and the Fishery Board's cruisers have maintained a thorough patrol and have done everything possible to warn foreign trawlers as to the presence of cod-nets. I am expecting a full report on the recent complaints, and on its receipt I will consider what further steps can be taken. In the meantime an active patrol will be maintained, and I trust that the fishermen will co-operate by carrying out the Regulations as to the marking and lighting of the nets, which I am informed are not being adequately observed.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling all along the coast of the Moray Firth about this question, and will he see that steps are taken by international action so that something may be done to put an end to this thing, once for all?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am well aware of the feeling, a feeling that has been there for many years, about this matter, and, as I stated in my answer, the Foreign Office is in communication with the Governments concerned.

Mr. BOOTHBY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have only got to Question 36.

Major WOOD: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on the earliest possible occasion.

FRUIT-CROWING INDUSTRY.

Major COLVILLE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the serious position existing in the fruit-growing industry in Scotland owing to the importation of cheap foreign fruit pulp; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to maintain the present standard of employment in this industry?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have recently had an opportunity of meeting representatives of the fruit-growing industry and I am aware of the position. It is quite clear to me that the first necessity in this industry is that the Scottish growers should organise themselves and put their marketing arrangements on a sound basis, and I hope that the Marketing Bill will give them the opportunity to do so.

Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign fruit pulp was sold at less than half the cost of the production of the British article, and can he say in what way the Marketing Bill touches that question?

Mr. ADAMSON: I discussed that aspect of the difficulty with a deputation from the fruit growers the other night, and I am well aware of it.

LANDHOLDERS (LOANS).

Mr. SCOTT: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts certain moneys were placed at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture both from moneys annually voted by Parliament and from loans through the Public Works Loans Commissioners; that by these Acts the moneys were inter alia to be applied by the Department in providing assistance by way of loans to new landholders to enable them to acquire rights in the buildings on their holdings, which loans were payable by way of annuities; and that in many cases before the loans have been repaid the Department has relet these holdings to new tenants at equipped rents which make no provision for the repayment of the balance of the loans; and what steps it is proposed to take to secure repayment of the sums lent?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: A landholder does not and cannot in law acquire or transfer right of property in the buildings but only acquires right of compensation for his improvements. As regards the sums borrowed by the Department from the Public Works Loans Commissioners the annuities in repayment of these borrowings are provided by revenues from the estates and where such revenues prove to be insufficient by the amount voted to the Department in terms of Sub-section 3 of Section 26 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act. 1919.

Mr. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper, namely, what steps it is proposed to take to secure repayment of the sums lent?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have done my best, and I hope successfully, to answer the question. May I point out, further; that within the last fortnight we have had an opportunity of discussing all the legal complexities referred to in the hon. Member's question, and these are so great that it is impossible within the limits of question and answer to deal with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ROYALTIES (LANARKSHIRE).

Mr. SULLIVAN: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount paid by coal owners in Lanarkshire in mining royalties and rates for the five years ending December, 1930?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I regret that the information in regard to royalties and local rates is not available by counties. During the five years 1925 and 1927–30, particulars for 1928 are not available, the estimated total amount of royalties paid by colliery owners in Scotland as a whole was nearly £4¼ millions, and the total amount of local rates approximately £945,000.

EMPLOYMENT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the number of persons representing the normal capacity for employment in the coal-mining industry at the present time or at any given period during the last 12 months; and by how many the number
of persons nominally registered as employable in the industry exceeds this figure?

Mr. SHINWELL: As I said in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member last week, the normal capacity for employment in the coal industry is a matter of opinion. The number of insured persons in the industry in July, 1930, which is the latest date for which a figure is available, was estimated to be 1,069,370. The number of wage earners on colliery books on the same date was 910,600. The two figures are not, however, strictly comparable as the former excludes all persons below the age of 16 and over the age of 64, while the latter includes wage earners of all ages. In addition some thousands of salaried persons are included in the first figure but not in the second.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the number of miners who cannot obtain employment in the industry, may I ask whether the Government have any plans to absorb then!, into the industry or to find them other employment?

Mr. SHINWELL: That is an entirely different question.

EXPLOSIONS.

Mr. TINKER: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines, seeing that the explosions in mines and deaths through them were greater in 1930 than in the two previous years, whether he can say if the inquiries made into the causes found that any of the explosions were caused through inadequate ventilation?

Mr. SHINWELL: Inquiries were made by His Majesty's inspectors into the causes of every one of these explosions. In two of them the ventilation was proved to have been inadequate through negligence on the part of the management, and those responsible were prosecuted and convicted of offences under the Coal Mines Act. In the other cases, although at the moment of the explosion and in the immediate neighbourhood of the source of ignition a dangerous concentration of fire-damp must have existed, there was no proof that the ventilation was inadequate through negligence and not through an accident or other causes against which it was impracticable to make provision.

COLLIERY, TYNESIDE (SALARIES).

Mr. SHIELD: 56.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that, at a colliery on Tyneside, over 48 per cent. of the total gross profits are absorbed in payment of salaries to persons not actually engaged in working operations and that the last balance sheet disclosed a loss; and whether he will deal with the matter by directing the notice of the reorganisation commissioners to the need for absorbing this colliery in other concerns?

Mr. SHINWELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If my hon. Friend will give me the name of the colliery and any other particulars, I will consider whether the matter is one on which action can suitably be taken on the lines indicated in the last part of his question.

Captain PEAKE: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not interfere with the work of the reorganisation commissioners in any way?

Mr. SHINWELL: This question has nothing whatever to do with the work of the reorganisation commissioners. It is merely asking for information.

PRICES.

Miss LEE: 57.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the wide discrepancy between the retail price of coal and the price charged at the pithead?

Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that representatives of the Coal Merchants' Federation and of coalowners are now discussing proposals which are designed to improve the methods and so reduce the costs of retail coal distribution. I propose to await the result of these negotiations. If they are unsuccessful I will give further consideration to the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the change in the situation in Palestine created by his letter to Dr. Weizmann, he will give a day for the discussion of the new position in Palestine?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The letter in question only covers points
already covered by the Debate on the 17th November last, and the Prime Minister does not, therefore, propose to afford another special day for a discussion on the subject.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that this letter is, in fact, a complete reversal of the policy of the White Paper and brings us back to the position in 1929 before the riots took place?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Not at all. The hon. and gallant Member put a question last week to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a categorical denial.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF SCHEMES).

Colonel BURTON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual cost to the Exchequer and to the rates of the schemes already approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the recently published report of the Unemployment Grants Committee, Command 3744, in Appendix VI, of which is set out the latest available information as to the estimated annual Exchequer liability in respect of schemes approved for grant through the Committee. I have no information as to the annual cost to the rates entailed by these schemes.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMERCIAL COMPANIES (SURTAX).

Mr. SMITHERS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bona fide commercial companies have had their undivided profits assessed for surtax by the Inland Revenue since 1st October, 1929, under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, and Sections 31 and 33 of the Finance Act, 1927; and, in cases of appeal, how many appeals have been decided in favour of the company and how many in favour of the Inland Revenue?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As this answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it clear that the undivided profits of these companies will not be unduly attacked or depleted—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question altogether.

Following is the answer:

The number of directions made under the Sections in question since 1st October, 1929, on all companies other than investment-holding companies and landed estate companies was 256. No appeal was lodged by the company in the ease of 82 of these directions, and appeals, which had been lodged, were subsequently withdrawn in the case of 34. In the case of a further 14, against which appeals had been lodged, the directions were discharged without a formal hearing on the receipt of further information from the company. Of the remaining 126 appeals, 56 are awaiting decision, 27 have been decided in favour of the Crown, 33 have been decided in favour of the company and 10 have been decided partly in favour of the Crown and partly in favour of the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.

Mr. HANNON: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state when the report of the Committee on Finance and Industry, presided over by Lord Macmillan, will present its report to the House and when it will be made available for Members?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to an exactly similar question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) last Thursday.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the time when he will be in a position to say when this report will be presented?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have answered that question in the reply that I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Ex-SERVICE MEN.

Sir F. HALL: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the cost-of-living bonus com-
pensation awarded to civil servants under the Civil Service Whitley Council cost-of-living agreement of 1920 was not extended to the same extent to ex-service men who joined His Majesty's Civil Service in a temporary capacity after the War and who are serving to-day as established, unestablished, or temporary officers, and of the dissatisfaction among these ex-service men concerning their existing remuneration, he will agree to suspend any further deduction in their existing salaries and wages on a cost-of-living basis until their existing remuneration has been placed upon a more satisfactory basis?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir. I should not feel justified in exempting these clerks from the decision that the remuneration of civil servants must be revised, as from 1st March next, in accordance with the principle prescribed by the cost-of-living agreement. The principle then laid down is applicable to the unestablished clerks referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question under the terms of agreed settlements dated 22nd May, 1924, and 7th May, 1929.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not think that the pay and emoluments of competent ex-service men should be as high as those of the non-service men?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member is raising a very important question. He refers to competent ex-service men. I have gone very carefully into this matter, and I am sure that the pay and emoluments for the kind of work they do compare very favourably with the pay in similar outside employment.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not the case that these men have been working side by side with those who are in receipt of higher rates of pay and that they have been carrying out their duties perfectly satisfactorily?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member not to raise that point.

STATIONERY OFFICE (TYPEWRITERS AND CALCULATING MACHINES).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any typewriters of foreign
manufacture have been purchased by the Stationery Office during the year 1930; and what was the total cost of such machines?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: A limited number of typewriters of foreign manufacture have been purchased by the Stationery Office during the year 1930 at a cost of £2,002. These machines are special types for which no suitable British-made substitutes are at present available.

Mr. LEWIS: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any calculating machines of foreign manufacture were purchased by the Stationery Office during the year 1930; and what was the cost of such machines?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: During the year 1930, £3,310 was spent by the Stationery Office on calculating machines wholly manufactured abroad and £6,637 on machines assembled in this country from parts manufactured abroad.

Mr. LEWIS: Am I to understand that in this case no suitable British machines were available?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, that is so.

TREASURY (SOLICITORS' DEPARTMENT).

Mr. DAY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons employed in the Solicitors' Department of the Treasury as at the last convenient date?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: At the present date the staff of the Treasury Solicitor's Department number 196.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (STANDING COMMISSION).

Mr. MARKHAM: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can now announce the composition of the proposed Standing Commission on Museums; and what will be its terms of reference?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries has been constituted as follows:

The Right Hon. Viscount D'Abernon (Chairman),
The Hon. Evan Edward Charteris,
1953
Sir Richard Tetley Glazebrook,
The Right Hon. Lord Hanworth,
The Earl of Harewood,
Sir George MacDonald,
Sir Henry Alexander Miers,
Mr. Charles Reed Peers,
The Right Hon. Sir Philip Sassoon, M.P., with
Mr. J. B. Beresford, M.B.E., a Principal in His Majesty's Treasury, as Secretary.

The terms of reference are:

"(i) To advise generally on questions relevant to the most effective development of the National Institutions as a whole, and on any specific question which may be referred to them from time to time.
(ii) To promote co-operation between the National Institutions themselves and between the National and Provincial Institutions.
(iii) To stimulate the generosity and direct the efforts of those who aspire to become public benefactors."

Mr. MARKHAM: May I ask why there is not a single representative of provincial museums on this Commission and whether the Financial Secretary will reconsider its constitution?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: These people were appointed on the recommendation of various National Gallery Committees.

Mr. MARKHAM: Why is there no representative of provincial museums or art galleries on the Commission?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Why are you ignoring Wales?

Mr. MARKHAM: In view of the lack of a response, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Elizabeth Leah Manning, for Borough of Islington (East Division).

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED EX- SERVICE MEN BILL,

"to make the employment of disabled ex-service men compulsory," presented by Mr. Longden; supported by Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Shillaker, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Devlin, Mr. William Hirst, Mr. Sim-
mons, Viscount Elmley, Mr. Mills, Colonel Clifton Brown, and Mr. Everard; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, relating to the terms on which official arbitrators in Scotland shall hold office." [Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].]

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESS- MENT OF COMPENSATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

NAVY (EXCESSES, 1929).

Copy presented,—of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1930 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

CUMBERLAND MARKET (ST. PANCRAS) BILL (SELECT COM MITTEE).

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Two Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Cumberland Market (St. Pancras) Bill: Mr. Haslam and Mr. Longden.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

CLASS 1.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): This Vote has arisen owing to the fact that two items of the original Estimate have eventuated in larger amounts than was anticipated. The first of these items relates to the travelling expenses of Members of Parliament. The original Estimate in this respect was £35,500, and it is now anticipated that the sum required will be in the neighbourhood of £42,000, involving a difference of £6,600. Of that difference about £4,000 is due to the fact that the original Estimate was based on the figures of last year, and that last year there was a General Election occupying about four weeks. That meant a saving in expenditure on travelling expenses for Members of something like £4,000 in that year and that sum of £4,000 is therefore an additional expenditure under this head for the current year. Apart from that, there is a deficiency of about £2,600 extending over the whole of the 12 months, and I can account for that also to the satisfaction of the Committee. The £4,000 difference is due to the General Election, and the balance of about £2,600 is covered over the whole period—

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman budgeting for a General Election this year?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We are basing the Estimate on the figure of the previous year. With reference to the £2,600, in the new Parliament a larger
number of Members make use of the vouchers every week. The reason is that in the old Parliament a larger proportion of Members had town residences where they lived during the Session. In the new Parliament a larger number of Members go down to their constituencies, which are their homes, every week-end. Whereas in the last Parliament about 460 Members made use of vouchers, in this Parliament the number is about 500. For the purposes of this Estimate, the year runs from February to January, and last year's figures included February, March and April of the old Parliament, whereas in the present year's figures are included February, March and April of the present Parliament. When these two discrepancies are taken into account, nearly the whole of the £6,600 has been accounted for. The excess under the other sub-head is accounted for by a lump sum payment of £4,380, which was paid into the estate of the late Clerk of the House, Sir Lonsdale Webster. The reason why the full amount does not appear in the Supplementary Estimate is that it is offset by the cessation of pensions on the death of pensioners.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: The Financial Secretary has given a delightful explanation for this increase in travelling expenses. Either he entirely forgot, in basing his Estimate on the 1929–30 figures, that there had been a General Election in May, 1929, or he expected a General Election in the year ending 31st March this year. We have been very near it once or twice, in which case the hon. Gentleman's figures would have come out much better, but it is very bad budgeting that, in estimating the figures for 12 months, the fact should be overlooked that in May, 1929, there were no Members of Parliament to have travel facilities. There are one or two points apart from this to which the attention of the Committee ought to be called. I happen to be one of the 115 Members who do not use these vouchers, my constituency being so near. Ten years ago, when this question was first debated, I was in favour of Members having free warrants for first-class tickets. Therefore, I have taken some interest in the question in the last 10 years, and I have noticed that the figure has been core tinually increasing. I have been into the matter on the Public Accounts Committee on more than one occasion.
There has been a steady increase of £2,000 or £3,000 a year under this heading for a good many years. The General Election of 1929 altered the composition of the House, and it may be that some hon. Members in the last Parliament were railway directors, and in that capacity had free travel. If a railway director from the north of England were replaced by a Member who was not a railway director, it would make a difference of from £50 to £100 a year. Even allowing for that, there has been a steady increase of £2,000 or £3,000 a year. In these difficult times, an extra £2,000 a year is liable to be cavilled at by the public, who are very jealous of Parliament and of economics generally, and it is rather unfortunate that we should have a miscalculation of, £4,000 and this excess spending of £2,000 at this time. It is distinctly unhappy from a national point of view. Another point in connection with this question wants consideration. It has been considered on several occasions whether it would not be worth while for Members of Parliament to be given season tickets in place of the present system of warrants. At the time when this was gone into last by the Public Accounts Committee—

The CHAIRMAN: This is not the occasion for arguing for or against season tickets as compared with the present system.

Sir A. POWNALL: With all deference, this is a question of spending an extra sum of money, and I am trying to show a means by which such extra sum can be avoided in future.

The CHAIRMAN: It should be raised on some other occasion. All we have to deal with to-day are the circumstances that have arisen to cause the increase. We cannot in this Committee alter the arrangements.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I submit that there is nothing to prevent the Committee altering the arrangements. The Committee are asked to vote a sum of money for the travelling expenses of many Members between London and their constituencies. The Vote says nothing about vouchers, or prescribes in any way the manner in
which the travelling expenses are to be incurred. The Executive is asking the House in Committee of Supply to vote a certain sum of money to pay the travelling expenses, and I submit that it is competent for the Committee to make known to the Government their desire that the payment should be made in some other fashion. If they do that, the change will be made next week or as soon as it can be brought into effect. There is nothing in the Vote which prescribes that the payment must be made in the way in which it is made at present.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not open to the Committee to discuss whether, in relation to this increased Vote, some alternative method can be introduced in order to reduce that sum?

Mr. DENMAN: These Estimates deal with the period ending March this year, and I suggest that any device that alters the method over a prolonged period cannot be discussed.

The CHAIRMAN: The Estimate is for an additional sum of money to meet expenses. This Committee, in my estimation, cannot argue whether there should be season tickets or vouchers. That argument would lead us very far indeed, and if it is to be raised I think it should come up on the Treasury Vote.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Is it not the purpose of this Committee to discuss whether the expenditure is justified or not, and if we can by our criticism suggest to the Government some means by which this payment may become unnecessary, surely that is within the scope of the discussion?

The CHAIRMAN: The discussion might take the line of increased expenditure.

Mr. MACLEAN: In discussing the matter of this Estimate and the additional sum that has to be found in order to cover the expenditure, we are not discussing policy, and I take it that it has been the custom on previous occasions of this kind to discuss or suggest methods whereby savings can be made. I think the suggestion of the hon. Member has been put in the form of a saving by another method, and in that sense it is not a question of policy at all but of bringing before the Committee a method of saving money.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I understood that this Estimate of £35,500 was in respect of vouchers, and I take it that it is not open to us to discuss to-day whether the money is to be found by way of voucher or otherwise. We have only to decide whether the money provided is insufficient, and whether we should vote a further £6,600 for that purpose. That is really the only point before the Committee.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Arising out of what the right hon. Member has just said, I say that the House decided nothing of the kind. It decided that £35,500 should be spent on travelling expenses. How it is done is a purely administrative method.

Mr. MILLS: In view of the overwhelming desire of all parties in this House to deal with the situation, if you, Sir Robert, refuse to allow it to be discussed now, will you suggest where it can be discussed?

The CHAIRMAN: The question does not arise here, but on the Treasury Vote, but I have this moment referred to the main Estimate and find the wording somewhat indefinite. I felt that a wide discussion on this matter should not take place for, as I say, we may have arguments for increased expenditure rather than reduced expenditure. However, I will see how the discussion goes.

Sir A. POWNALL: My point is purely an administrative one. I do not want to spend more money; I want to spend less, it may be by a different means of administering the money which each year the House votes for this purpose. I therefore submit that in that way I can keep within the bounds of order, and have a chance of ventilating the subject. I will confine my remarks merely to saying that any hon. Member who wants information on this point can find it in a, recent report of the Public Accounts Committee, where it will be found that had the season ticket plan been adopted some years ago, it would have imposed an extra expenditure of £15,000 or £20,000. All I say now is that the expenditure has gone up so much each year, that the question might be reviewed, owing to the altered figures before us, because to many Members season tickets would be a great convenience. I admit that there are pros and cons with regard
to it. Members may, in fact, never use warrants at all, but travel by road. The pros and cons, however, might again be studied, in view of the fact that no longer a saving of £20,000 would be effected, but only a very small saving, and many hon. Members would greatly prefer season tickets to the present voucher plan. That was my only reason for calling attention to the report of the Public Accounts Committee and to ask Members to bear it in mind.

Mr. MILLS: Like the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), I also was in the House at the time this question was discussed. I also represent a constituency which necessitates my having to pay a shilling to come up to London in order to travel down to my constituency, which is two miles further on. Therefore, I think I can speak on this matter with a certain amount of impartiality. The original intention of this House was to endeavour to revise the pre-War allowance to Members of Parliament, and I well remember the Select Committee being appointed and the evidence which was given. There were three Members of this House who were too poor to be assessable to Income Tax. One was Mr. Charles White, the Member at that time for North-East Derbyshire; the other was Mr. Myers, the then Member for Spen Valley; and the third was myself, and when all the investigations had been concluded, the Committee solemnly recommended that the £400 should be free of Income Tax, which left the three poorest Members of the House of Commons exactly where they were before.
Following that, the question of railway passes for Members of Parliament arose, and we understood from the beginning that it would take the form of an identity card. Like many other hon. Members, I have been out of this country, and well know that the question of identity is difficult. Everyone can present a card, and it carries no one any further. Getting to this House on a day such as that of the marriage of Princess Mary, or the opening of Parliament, we cannot get through the crowd, and a policeman looks with an air of suspicion if you try to push through the people. It seems to me that the production of a season ticket carrying the photograph of the recipient, or some
other form of identification which would be valid in every other country as well as here, would be something more in accord with the dignity of Parliament. In view of what has happened, I believe it is the unanimous desire of all parties in this House to substitute something for the vicious and wasteful system of vouchers. Evidence has been given of people who have scrapped at one time half-a-dozen return tickets from the North of England which they have never used. In circumstances like that, it is obvious that the question of a season ticket which is valid for the use of the Member himself and no other person, is one that cries out for consideration by the House.

Commander SOUTHBY: I wish to offer only a brief observation in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), that surely the time has come to re-discuss this question of the season ticket as against the voucher system for Members of Parliament. The voucher system is open to obvious criticism, and it might be that if a system of season tickets were substituted, the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate would cease, because it would have the advantage that the exact amount would be known.

Colonel ASHLEY: As the Minister in the late Government who had to submit the memoranda to the Treasury about the allowances to Members of this House, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on the subject. As regards the preference for vouchers, that is to say a ticket for each journey, or for season tickets, I must confess that, personally, I was overwhelmingly in favour of season tickets. It seemed to me a waste of energy always having to get tickets, and that if Parliament decided—I think, unfortunately—that travelling allowances were to be given to Members and tickets provided for them, then they ought to be given to Members in the most convenient form for them. I sent memoranda in that sense, but I was always met with the answer that that would cost more, and that the cheapest form was to oblige each Member to take out a ticket for each individual journey or return journey. My own case was
always cited against me, because I travel comparatively seldom.
I do not know that this is the time to defend increased expenditure. That, I think, must be left to the judgment of the House as a whole, but I will say that it is obviously more convenient to have season tickets. I, myself, am not quite convinced that the Treasury are correct that, taking the whole body of Members, it would cost more for season tickets. It is fortunate, I think, that this Vote has come before us, because it may bring about a re-examination of the whole question, and, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will consider this later with a view to seeing that it does not cost any more. If that should be the case, Members should be given season tickets. It has been suggested that a reduction might be obtained by giving us third class tickets. I can dispose of that in one sentence. It would be ridiculous for a Minister to be given a third-class ticket when his private secretary or the head of his Department was travelling first-class on public duty.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: He can pay the difference.

Colonel ASHLEY: Why should a Minister be worthy of only a third-class fare, when his private secretary is worthy of a first-class fare?

Sir G. HAMILTON: Because he can well afford to pay the difference.

Colonel ASHLEY: If it is a question of what he can afford, it would mean an inquisition into every man's income. As we are dealing with the question, could not the Financial Secretary and the Minister of Transport consider whether it would not be an economy, and certainly it is a fair thing that the ticket should be from the place of residence of the Member to London, and not from the constituency to London? These allowances are given to enable a Member to carry out his duties at Westminster, not to enable him to visit his constituency, and it seems ridiculous at the present time that the ticket should only be given from the constituency to London and not from the place of residence of the Member.

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: I rise to speak only because of the Public Accounts Committee's report on this subject. I understand that the contention that season tickets would cost more was based
on ordinary season ticket rates. I have always understood that the railway companies when dealing with companies who put huge sums into their pockets attach special conditions to tickets for directors and managers of such companies. If that be so, I suggest that as the Government are the largest customer which the railways of this country have got—I may be wrong, but I think I am right—there is, for instance, the Post Office—the Financial Secretary might be asked to get quotations on the favourable terms which are now extended to private companies.

Captain GUNSTON: With reference to the suggestion just made by the hon. Member that the Government might be able to obtain special terms from the railway companies for these tickets, I would remind the House that when a railway Bill came up for consideration individual Members might feel in such a case that they were under an obligation to the railway companies, and I think we ought to put the hon. Member's suggestion out of our minds. As to what the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said, I think we must agree that though it may be desirable, from his point of view, to spend money on the social services, we ought to be as economical as possible on this service. Each of us is apt, to consider his own case in this matter, and I may mention that I live in my Division and on the average travel up to the House once a week in the year. Where a season ticket is used only once a week it does not, I believe, pay to buy one; one would have to use the ticket more frequently than that if there were to be any saving as compared with the use of voucher tickets.
A way out of the difficulty may be found, however, in the circumstance that the House is not sitting the whole year. Though season tickets for Members would probably cost more if they were available throughout the whole year, there might be a saving if they were available only while the House was sitting, and vouchers were supplied for the remainder of the year. I put that forward as a suggestion which might receive the consideration of the Treasury. Would there be any objection to going through the vouchers and seeing how many each Member has used—I am not suggesting that there has been anything wrong—in order to ascertain how many cases there are in which a saving would be effected by sub-
stituting a season ticket for the vouchers? My own case, I believe, would be just on the border line. I am not suggesting that we should take any privileges away from Members, but there might be a saving in giving some Members a season ticket while the House was sitting and allowing them to get vouchers for any journeys when the House is not sitting.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I wish to direct attention to the figures given to us by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In explaining the necessity for this Supplementary Estimate of £6,600 he sought to get rid of £4,000 of it by reminding us that there was a General Election in 1929, although the Department must have been cognisant of that fact when the original estimate was drawn up. I do not know what period of time the Financial Secretary reckoned in respect of the General Election. If, as I understood him to say, the loss of Parliamentary time was estimated at four weeks, then the amount allowed in respect of that period ought to be £3,000 and not £4,000. The original Estimate for the year was £35,500 and if we knock off a month that would mean a reduction of about one-twelfth, which would be somewhere about £3,000. Then the Financial Secretary said that whereas 460 Members had been in the habit of using vouchers, owing to the change in the composition of the House, the number had increased to 500. He used those 40 additional. Members to account for the balance of £2,600 of the increase. If we divide £2,600 by £40 we get a sum of £65. I do not know whether that corresponds approximately to the average cost per Member. If it does, then the £2,600 would fairly cover the amount, but personally I should think that £65 is rather a high figure, and that would leave some part of the supplementary sum still to be accounted for. I was struck by the remark from an hon. Member opposite that in some cases return tickets had been thrown away unused. If hon. Members are careless in taking a return ticket without being certain that they will require the use of the return half, and afterwards throw it away, they are throwing an unnecessary charge upon the State. I think the suggestion of season tickets worthy of examination.
There is one other point. It should not be overlooked that we are examining this Supplementary Estimate at a time of extreme financial stringency, and it is much more difficult to justify measures which might be accepted in normal times. Reference has been made to the question whether the vouchers should be for first-class tickets or third class. It has been pointed out that there are Members who cannot afford the expense of the extra travel which membership of the House imposes upon them and that it would be unfair not to pay their expenses. Such Members, when travelling on their own private affairs, would undoubtedly travel third-class, and in such cases I cannot see that it is any hardship upon them to travel third-class when somebody else is paying if they would travel third class if they were paying for themselves. In the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves there is a good deal to be said for substituting third-class travel for first-class as a temporary measure, although under normal conditions a strong case could be made out for allowing first-class travel.
I must confess that I was not impressed by the difficulty raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) that a Minister might have to travel third-class while his private secretary rode first-class. Ministers could be dealt with separately when travelling on public business and have the privilege of a first-class voucher. That is a difficulty that could be got over in that way, or some other. In view of the speech on the national finances made the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a strong case could be made out for us to set an example to the nation by showing that we are willing as a temporary measure to travel third-class.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I gather from the remarks of the late Minister of Transport and other speakers that there is a desire to study the convenience of hon. Members as well as taking into account the cost. The late Minister of Transport took the view that the convenience of Members generally would be served if they were supplied with contract tickets instead of being given a separate ticket for each journey.

Colonel ASHLEY: I said that that was subject to the overriding consideration of expense.

Mr. HUDSON: I accept that; but the point I was proceeding to make was that in a great many cases it will not suit the convenience of Members to have a contract ticket. From many parts of the country hon. Members have the choice of travelling to London by two routes, and it is a great advantage to be able to select whichever route is more convenient in point of view of the train times on a particular occasion. A large number of Members will be greatly inconvenienced by contract tickets which bind them down to the use of one line only.

Mr. PYBUS: Is not the question before us more or less one of arithmetic? One presumes that the country would like to save money, and if any particular Member can show, on the basis of the number of vouchers which has been issued to him in a year, that it would be a saving for him to have a season ticket, is there any reason why the Government should turn down an offer from him to take a season ticket in place of the vouchers? As the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) said, in these times we must save all the money we, and if an hon. Member will go to the Fees Office and offer to have a season ticket and prove that it would be cheaper, it is difficult to understand how the Treasury could refuse to take advantage of such an offer. In addition, I would point out that most of the travelling by Members is done at the week-ends, and it is well known that persons travelling on these cheap week-end tickets have a greatly reduced claim against a railway company in a case of accident happening to them on the journey. Hon. Members who have wives and families dependent upon them therefore take ordinary return tickets at a very much higher cost because they are not prepared to sacrifice what would come to their dependants in the case of a fatal accident. I suggest that if I went to the Financial Secretary and proved to him that the State would save £10 or £15 by giving me a season ticket it would be very difficult in these stringent times to justify the refusal of such an offer.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Those who were Members of the House when
this question first came up will recall that I always said, frankly, that I was opposed to the institution of this privilege of free travel, but it is an accomplished fact, and, of course, we cannot go back upon it. I am sure, also, that it will be felt in all parts of the Committee that this is a time when this question should be looked into. It is fair to say that when this system of free travel was introduced the estimate of its cost was much higher than proved to be the case. I think the original estimate was for £75,000, whereas in point of fact the expenditure has been round about £30,000 or £34,000. The Financial Secretary did not mention the fact that last year the estimate was increased by £1,000, from £34,500 to £35,500. Now we have this increase of £6,600.
An hon. Member has stated that this is largely a matter of arithmetic, but there are other circumstances which we have to take into account. We have to start with the fundamental assumption that whatever we do must not involve any extra charge upon the public funds. We are all agreed about that. I have been trying to work out some of the arithmetical points which have been put before the Committee, and I started by taking the question of first-class travel-Eng. On the basis of 2½d. per mile with 500 travelling Members the cost would be £42,000 and that represents about 8,000 miles per member per year or the very respectable total of 4,000,000 miles a year. On the basis of a Session of 35 weeks it works out at about 228 miles for each of the 500 Members, a figure which seems to me to be rather high. I agree that you have to take long distances into account, and it is precisely from that point of view that I urge the Government to go into this question. Let the Financial Secretary find out in what proportion tickets have been used for long-distance journeys, and how the number of long-distance journeys compares with the number of short-distance journeys. I was horrified by the suggestion that occasionally people scrap a considerable number of tickets; that appears to me to have no possible defence. Surely there must be some provision under which tickets not used can be returned to the railway companies, and I should be very surprised to hear
that the scrapping of these tickets was at all general. If that has been the practice, then it is a bad practice.
I would suggest that the Government might reconsider the question of travelling in the Recess. I always thought that these facilities in the Recess were rather illogical. I was always against this practice altogether, but I also took the position that, if you are going to have it, the practice was far more logical to have it between London and the Members' homes, as was first suggested, instead of between London and the Members' constituencies. It was eventually settled that the facilities should be granted between London and the Member's constituency, and, that having been settled, the logical basis of continuing it during the Recess goes. If the facilities were granted between London and the Member's home, then there would be something to be said for all-the-year-round facilities, but, when the House is not sitting, and the Member is not residing in his London home—an increasing number of hon. Members reside in their own constituency—there appears to be a strong argument for considering whether the Government should not suspend these travelling facilities except for one journey from London and one back again. If that were done, I think it would he found that the season ticket system would he cheaper than the existing basis of charges, and I am quite sure that it would he much more satisfactory and convenient for Members.
I believe that such an arrangement would save money to the Exchequer. I do not know of any other country where Members enjoy these facilities during the Recess. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, Germany."] But they do not enjoy the facilities all the year round in Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am only speaking from recollection, but I think it was found at the time when this question was first considered that in quite a number of countries the travelling facilities of Members of Parliament were only extended to the time when Parliament was sitting. At all events, it seems to me to be rather an illogical thing that we should have these facilities during the Recess. At a time when we are reconsidering this question, it is worth while the Government looking into the matter
and telling us what the cost of season tickets would be all the year round on the assumption of a normal Parliament sitting for 25 weeks in the year; then we can see what is the difference, and we shall know exactly where we are. I submit to the Financial Secretary that the Committee are not satisfied that the present system is absolutely the best that can be devised for the convenience of Members or the saving of money, and I hope the matter will be reconsidered.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Perhaps it will be convenient for me to reply now to the points which have been raised. I was very glad, Mr. Chairman, that you found yourself able to allow the discussion to proceed along these lines, because the House is very anxious to discuss this matter, and it is very important that we should have an opportunity of discussing it this afternoon. I am very glad to respond to the invitation of those hon. Members who have asked me to investigate this matter further to see whether any alternative method can be adopted in place of the system involved at the present time. There are other alternatives to that of season tickets. It has been suggested that Members should be provided with warrants instead of being able to exchange their vouchers at the booking office for an ordinary railway ticket, and it is claimed that that is what is done in other countries. I will consider whether that would not be an advantage over the present system.
The main point which has been mentioned this afternoon is that of the alternative of the season ticket, as against the present system. I should like to inform the Committee that there are a good many points to be taken into account which do not seem to me to have been realised by hon. Members. In the first place, there is the very salient point to which the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) has referred. What is going to be the position during the Recesses? Is it suggested that the season ticket should not apply to the Recess, and, if not, it is suggested that during the interval we should go back to the voucher or warrant system? Do hon. Members wish to adopt the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Member for South Croydon that we should refuse to give any travelling facili-
ties during the Recess? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]. I am afraid that point his not been made quite clear.
Another matter was raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) who suggested that the vouchers should be available on two or more railways which are not in the same group. Under the present system, I sometimes travel on one railway and come back on the other, and I think the voucher we have issued to us at present is admirably suited for that purpose. If I attend a meeting during the week end, I endeavour to go by one line and come back by the same line, which avoids taking single tickets. In the ordinary way, season tickets are not inter-changeable on two lines.

Sir G. HAMILTON: The ordinary traders' season ticket is available on any railway of any group when the railways run to the same town.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am dealing with the ordinary season ticket, and that will only apply to a single railway and not to an alternative railway. I will come to traders' tickets later. Then there is the case which has been mentioned of the Member for a county constituency who wishes to, travel to several different points in his own constituency. Under the present system, the Member originally had to choose a single place in his constituency, and his voucher was made out for that place. During the last Parliament a further concession was given allowing a Member to travel to any place in his constituency on any particular day of the week. If we changed over to the season ticket system, it would involve considerable inconvenience and an increase in the cost.
It is quite true, as was stated by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) that the cost has been steadily rising. With regard to that point, may I state that the figure for the Estimate of this year was based on the 1928–29 figure, which was a whole year without a General Election, and the total was in the neighbourhood of £35,000. It was assumed by those who made that Estimate that the effect of the General Election would have been to reduce the amount below the 1928 figure, and it appeared that that was going to be the case when the Estimates were weighed
up. The amounts becoming due in the heavier months of December and January of the present Parliament have shown themselves in time to be taken into account in the main Estimates, and that is why the figure was put down at the old amount, and was not increased as it should have been when it was realised that the cost had increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon suggested that if we cut the season tickets down to the bone by having no facilities in the Recess, and only a single place in the constituencies, we should actually save money by changing over from the present system to the season ticket system. That is not the case. The very lowest estimate that I have before me is for the sum of £46,000, which the Committee will see is about £4,000 above the actual increased figure for which we are asking at the moment.

Mr. ALBERY: Is that for the same number of Members?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was coming to that point. That is the lowest estimate put forward. It is an estimate based upon the number who had travelled when the Estimate was prepared. We have several additions to make to it. First of all, there is the larger number of Members travelling at the present time. Then, if we are to give the same facilities in the Recess, we get to £58,000, and if to that we add travelling to various points in the constituency, the amount would probably exceed £60,000, and it might be as high as £70,000, to carry out the full provision of season tickets throughout the year.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is that based on ordinary season ticket rates or traders' season ticket rates? There is a great difference.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was coming to that point also. That estimate is for season tickets at ordinary rates. A suggestion has been made in the. Debate that, instead of ordinary season tickets at the full rate, we should endeavour—I use the words in no discreditable sense—to strike a bargain with the railway companies by getting what might be traders' tickets or by taking some other means of reducing the cost of the tickets from the full season
ticket amount. That suggestion was also considered when the original scheme was carried through, and it was then decided that it was not desirable for this House to make a bargain with the railway companies. I think there are obvious grounds for that objection. That is why the proposal fell through. Otherwise, I am quite aware that we could strike a bargain with the railway companies and probably get a reduction from the full amount. The Committee might take the view that that is the right thing to do, but the Government, following the lines of their predecessors all through the years, have taken the view that such a course is undesirable. Unless there is a very strong feeling to the contrary, I think we should adhere to that decision.
A further suggestion was made in the Debate. Hon. Members have suggested a hybrid method of dealing with the question. They say "Let us give vouchers to Members of Parliament who use only a few vouchers, but season tickets to Members who use many vouchers, if that means a reduction of cost." I have had that suggestion in various forms put before me by individual Members during the time that I have been Financial Secretary to the Treasury. On looking into it, I find that it would be very difficult to adopt, and I think the Committee will see that it would not be a very satisfactory method of dealing with this question. It would be a very delicate matter and very difficult to operate. The same criticism applies to the proposal that we should adopt a hybrid system of another kind—season tickets during the Session and vouchers during the Recess. I think the Committee will realise that when we are dealing with this matter we have to deal with it in a broad way and to adopt one system throughout. We cannot pick and choose between one Member and another, any more than we can do so between one period and another. We must throughout use season tickets, or bargain with the railways, or use traders' tickets, or use vouchers. Whatever the system adopted, we must stick to it throughout.
It will he open to the Committee to decide whether we should have tickets only during the Session, but the position that we have taken up to now is that
the tickets should be available during the Recess, and short of an overwhelming expression of opinion to the contrary by the Committee the Government do not want to alter that arrangement. The right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) made the suggestion that the tickets should be available between the House of Commons and the Member's residence instead of between the House of Commons and his constituency. I am afraid that it would not be in order to deal with that suggestion, because in the original Estimate it is specifically stated that the ticket is to be between the House of Commons and the constituency. Probably the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish to press that point, as it is contrary to the original decision of the House in the matter. I have now dealt with most of the questions that have been put to me. I conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning. Up to the present I have made only a partial survey of this matter. I am quite willing to, and I gather that it is the wish of the Committee that I should, examine the question further, and to go into all the details, to see if I can suggest any method which, without costing inure, would be either more convenient to Members or in other ways more desirable, and in such an event I should recommend the change for the consideration of the Committee.

Major GLYN: I am sure that the Committee has heard with great satisfaction that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is willing to consider this matter in all its aspects. I am certain that if he would consider the possibility of setting up a small committee to go into the method by which tickets are issued he would find that the railway companies would be only too anxious to co-operate with him. There is one aspect of the matter which has not been dealt with so far. I happened to be a member, in 1921, of the committee which considered this problem and came to the conclusion that it was right that, in addition to the £400 a year granted in 1911, hon. Members should have free travel facilities. There was great discussion then as between first class and third class. It was then considered right and proper that hon. Members journeying from their constituencies to London
should have every facility for rest so as to be in good condition when they arrived at the House for business.
There is no doubt that since those facilities have been given there has been an enormous amount of extra travelling. That, I think, is only right and proper in the case of hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north, as it puts them on all fours with hon. Members who represent constituencies near London. Before the Committee of which I was a member we had evidence from one who has now ceased to be a Member of the House, that he was never able to see his family throughout the Session because he could not afford the journey to his home, which happened to be in his constituency. I am certain that hon. Members will realise that it is not right that any hon. Member should be put in a position of disadvantage of that sort. Therefore, if we are all agreed that there shall be these travelling facilities, the next problem we have to face is that it shall be done with the minimum of cost to the country. If we are decided upon that, we shall be all equally decided that there should be no abuse of the privilege. I believe that the time has come when the method of the present voucher system should be revised.
An hon. Member has said that he finds it is possible to convert the existing voucher into a warrant. I believe that that can be done. That would meet the objections of my right hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley), who thinks that it takes a long time to exchange a voucher for a ticket. It also has the advantage that hon. Members can travel by any route they like. They would have to sign in each case the counterfoil of the warrant. Abroad, if you travel on a privilege ticket, you are asked by the collector to sign your name on the back of the voucher in order that he may ensure that the signature is the same as that of the person entitled to travel. That very small difficulty could be easily met by hon. Members themselves. There is the point about the difference between first and third class. I feel, and I have felt for a long time, that it is not right for hon. Members to travel in any discomfort, but I think we can say that since the privileges were granted the convenience and the advantages of the third class passenger have been very well looked after by the railway com-
panies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I shall stick to that point, because I believe it to be true.
There is a further point. In the case of hon. Members who sit for Midland constituencies it may not matter so much whether they travel first or third class, but in the case of hon. Members who sit for northern constituencies it is very important that they should get a night's rest when travelling. That is a matter which weighed with me in the original discussions of the Committee referred to. There are so many aspects of this question that, if the Financial Secretary would consider the best means of dealing with it by consulting the usual channels, the railway companies and representatives in different parts of the House, I am sure that a system could be devised which would be to the advantage of the Exchequer and a personal convenience to all Members.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Considering the millions that we handle it would seem that we are devoting ridiculous attention to this Vote of £40,000 for the travelling expenses of hon. Members. It shows how sensitive the Committee is when a matter appears to affect the interests of hon. Members themselves. This is a very small sum indeed compared with what we spend on other purposes. If we travel on public business to our constituencies we ought to travel in comfort. I have, therefore, always supported first-class travel for Members of Parliament, for I hold that if there is any class in the community which ought to have comfort in travelling it is the Members of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We nearly all of us do work in the trains when we are travelling, and, if we can get undisturbed room, without a crowd around us, we ought to have it. I am not very much in favour of any distinction being made between third and first-class, and, if the time comes for all travelling to be done at one class, I should still advocate separate corridors being reserved for Members of Parliament. I have not found the voucher system inconvenient. It is not much trouble 10 fill up the voucher. As to the Recess, that is a period when these tickets are most useful. Therefore, I do not think any case has been made out for doing away with the existing system.
It is desirable that all Members should be treated alike; otherwise, I see no difficulty in giving season tickets to Members where it will pay to do so and of using the warrant system for others. There is not much in it. I agree that we should save what we can in view of the expenditure which is going on, but the House should not allow it to be supposed that we ought to approach this question in any shamefaced way as though we were asking for something to which we are not entitled. Against that attitude I want to enter my protest. We should get cheaper tickets where we can get them for our purposes, but, so far as the payment of Members is concerned, I think the part least requiring criticism is the expenditure devoted to travelling.

Mr. HARDIE: As one who comes from a long distance I wish to say a few words on this question. I have always held that whatever form of pass was used it ought to be one which would in no way be transferable. That is a matter which forms an undercurrent to this Deba[...]e, and I approach it quite straight forwardly. A statement was made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills)—I am sorry he is not in the House—which raised the question not only of his own honour but of the honour of all Members. I remember when I asked what world be done about the return half in the case of a Member taking a return ticket on going home, and the House going into Recess, I was told that he would put it in an envelope and send it back to the Treasury, who would get credit for it.
I have here in my hand a document which is not affected in any way by the class you are travelling, the date on which you travel, nor where you are travelling. On it is a photograph in the front and your signature. When a Member goes to a station, he has to fill in his voucher and get a ticket in the ordinary way. I am trying to avoid the issue of a ticket. With this system I have here in my hand, all a Member does is to sign his name across two sections, the outward and the return, and give the date. This will allow him to pass the check of the collector on his journey to his constituency and will supply a check again on his return journey when completed. It affords a complete record of the Member's travelling, and there is no possibility of any other use
being made of it. That, I submit, is a much handier system than the voucher system.

Sir G. HAMILTON: What record would the company have of the journeys?

Mr. HARDIE: On the railway journeys the railway company would tear off slips and they would have a record on their books. With regard to the question of the single journey, I would ask: Are there any single journeys in connection with Parliamentary duties? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, I am glad that this question has been raised. If circumstances are such in the case of some Members that they can come back by car. [HON. MEMBERS: "By omnibus."] Well, supposing you come back by boat. When I can travel by boat to Glasgow, I save about £3. Provision for this is made by the voucher. By boat or rail, as the Minister of Transport said, is the real basis of the arrangement.
I hope that the Treasury when they consider this matter will take what I have suggested into account for it seems to me, apart altogether from the question of inconvenience of the voucher system, that the system I am recommending, with a photograph of the Member on the front part of it together with his signature, affords full guarantee as to who is travelling. If there is any fault in our present system which would tempt anyone to do anything that is wrong, then I say let us perfect it.

Major LLEWELLIN: I rise to endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn). Personally, I am a little disappointed in the attitude that the Committee has taken this afternoon upon one point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that economy is absolutely necessary. I suppose there is a large number of Members on these benches who talk about economy, and I suppose there are still a few Members on the Liberal benches who also mention that subject in the country. I should have liked the Committee to have determined that Members should travel third-class and not first-class.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point before the Committee. The Committee is
not called upon to say whether Members should travel first-class or third-class.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On that point of Order. If the Committee should decide upon third-class instead of first-class, that would obviate this additional sum.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is not one of first-class or third-class tickets. The question before the Committee is that of an estimate.

Major LLEWELLIN: Perhaps I might say, then, that Members should travel in such a way that this Estimate would be reduced by rather more than half. When we are discussing economy the first thing to do is to economise in small things and to start with economy at home, and that is why I should have liked the Committee to have made the gesture this afternoon. The case has been mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Ashley) of Members of Parliament or perhaps Ministers having to travel at a lower class than that travelled by private secretaries or members of a Department. Well, I should cut down the price of travel tickets to civil servants rather than cut down their pay. All that it seems necessary to ensure by this Vote is that Members of Parliament should be able to travel to and from their constituencies. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) who spoke from the Liberal Benches said that if any class of the community needed to travel in comfort it was that of Members of Parliament. I would reply by saying that if there is any class in this country who should consider economy it is that of Members of Parliament. When I travel to Scotland, as I usually do in the Autumn, I invariably go third-class and on a third-class sleeper. The third-class sleepers which are now provided are extremely comfortable and are quite as much as any Member of this House can afford for himself, or at any rate that the majority of Members can afford, if paying for it out of their own money. If we travel in that way when we do so with our own money, then we ought to travel the same class when we do it out of public expenditure. [Interruption.] Indignation was expressed at the idea of a Member taking a week-end
ticket, but I say that, if we take weekend tickets when we pay for them ourselves, we should do the same when they are paid for by the State.
The only other point to which I want to refer is that of travelling during the Recess. There are some people, for instance Parliamentary private secretaries, who may naturally have to travel from a constituency back to London, but personally I would not allow an ordinary Member, unless he had a Parliamentary duty to perform, to travel during the Recess at the expense of the country.

Mr. HARDIE: Suppose that you had someone living 300 or 400 miles away from London who did not come within the category mentioned by the hon. Member and suppose in connection with some matter which he is fighting in his constituency that he finds it necessary to come up to London to get in touch with one of the Departments, would you say that he has no right to be afforded travelling facilities or that such a matter does not come within the definition of Parliamentary duty?

Major LLEWELLIN: If I were asked that question, I would say that, when it was right for him to come here in connection with any duty to his constituency, he should be allowed to travel at the expense of the State, but he should make some explanation to the Treasury saying that this was necessary for certain reasons. I would not, however, allow Members to travel from their constituency to London during the Recess for, say, a wedding.

Mr. HARDIE: I resent that.

The CHAIRMAN: Although the hon. Member may resent it, it is not out of order.

Major LLEWELLIN: I was not suggesting that the hon. Member himself was going to use a warrant in that way, although, as the warrants are at present issued, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr. HARDIE: Nothing of the kind; I am not permitted to use it.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member views his voucher in that light, and, apparently, therefore, agrees with the point I am
making, namely, that hon. Members should not be allowed to use their vouchers except for strictly Parliamentary duties. As I understand the Resolution of this House, so long as they are travelling between London and their constituencies, they are allowed to use their warrants, and no one is entitled to ask them, "What have you travelled for?"

Mr. HARDIE: Nobody travels 800 miles for fun.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not continually interrupt.

Major LLEWELLIN: The point that I was making, and I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me, was that there should be some Resolution laid down that Members should not travel during the Recess unless in connection with some Parliamentary duty. Our primary duty, as Members of the House of Commons, is to be economical with the moneys of the State, and, especially, to be economical when our own convenience or comfort is concerned. We should examine this Vote strictly, and I personally had hoped that this afternoon it would have been decided that the Vote could have been reduced by laying it down that, from now until the 31st March next, we should travel third class instead of first.

Mr. DENMAN: I am afraid that, on this Vote for money required before the end of March, I cannot persuade myself that the discussion of what is possible during the Recess can be in order, and so I will not follow the last speaker, or other speakers—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that that remark of his is a reflection on the Chair. I myself indicated that a wide discussion would be out of order, but I looked at the original Estimate and found that it was not very definite, and, therefore, I allowed a somewhat wider discussion when this suggestion was made to the Financial Secretary.

Mr. DENMAN: I apologise if my remark could have been taken, by any construction at all, as a reflection on the Chair. It was not so intended; it was only to explain why I did not feel entitled to embark on that particular subject of
discussion. The point that I want to make is a simple one. What I would submit is really in order on this Estimate is any suggestion that will combine any convenience for Members with increased economy in our Estimates. Any suggestion that would enable us to lessen the amount spent in travelling is, I submit, in order, and, therefore, I want to suggest to the Financial Secretary that he might allow a somewhat wider range of possibilities than he seemed to be inclined to accept. He suggested that we must have a rather cast-iron system of one type or another, but I submit that it is possible to effect considerable economies by allowing to Members a reasonable amount of choice. Why should not a Member choose a cheaper method if it happens to be more convenient to him? The use of a third-class ticket would frequently be most convenient. Take the case of Pullmans. The third-class Pullman is quicker and even more comfortable than the first-class, but we cannot use our vouchers—

Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes; it is on the voucher.

Mr. DENMAN: The Pullman ticket has to be paid for by oneself, and I suggest that it ought to be possible to allow a Member to adopt a method of travelling to his destination cheaper than his voucher indicates. For instance, as has already been mentioned, the third-class sleeper is cheaper than the first-class ordinary fare. The third-class "with trimmings" is really a preferable method, and in many cases is cheaper. Why should not a Member adopt that method?

Mr. LEIF JONES: The State does not pay for the sleeper.

Mr. DENMAN: I suggest that it is cheaper, and, therefore, while he gets greater comfort, there is an economy in the money spent by the State. Then, with regard to season tickets, why should not a third-class season ticket be allowed for anyone who wants it, instead of the first-class voucher system? That might be a convenience, and I submit it as a suggestion to the Financial Secretary. I do not see any reason why, if we want to make economies, we should not be allowed to do so.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £6,590.
My object in moving this reduction is not to extinguish the Vote altogether because it still leaves in hand the normal token sum of 110 in case adjustment is required. I move it in order to call further attention to one point which has already been dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) seemed to be a little surprised that the House should be so meticulously careful about this Estimate—[Interruption]—and he confirms that by saying, "Hear, hear!"; but the fact that the House has been fairly full, and that so many Members have taken part in the discussion, is due, I think, to what was said by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). I am sure he was right when he said that throughout this Debate there has been a sort of under-current, so many Members feeling that the honour of the House has been impugned by a certain misfortune, as we may call it, which recently occurred. That is quite correct. Last week I asked the Financial Secretary what would be the saving in the current year if the vouchers available for Members of the House had been third class instead of first class vouchers, and the estimate made by the Treasury under that head was £16,000. If we could adopt that arrangement forthwith, there would be no need for this Supplementary Estimate, and, therefore, the reduction which I am moving could be put into effect.
It is obviously difficult at any time to work out exactly how much these estimates may be according to the system of vouchers, season tickets and so on, but the hon. Gentleman's own figures show that there would be a saving of £16,000 as between third class and first class fares. After what we have heard from the Treasury Bench, after we have been warned that every section of the community will have to put up with some sacrifice, when even the Cabinet is going to do something—not yet described—in that direction, when social services hvae to be checked, when possibly the "dole" will have to be reduced—[Interruption]—when the Civil Service is going to have large reductions in its salaries, I put it to this Committee that, on the first possible occasion when the House can do something in the way of sacrifice for the common good, it is incumbent upon us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Camborne says that, if there were only one class of railway travelling in this country, Members of Parliament ought to have some special privileges. I hope that those privileges will not be arranged by the United Kingdom Alliance, but I am not at all sure that there is anything in the argument that Members of Parliament should be treated differently from ordinary passengers. It would probably do hon. Members opposite a lot of good to travel between London and their constituencies third class, and get into touch with some of their constituents and hear what they think about the attitude and activities of the present Government; and I am sure it would assist hon. Members of the Opposition to travel third class and hear what people have to say about the Government and get more ammunition for their speeches. I put it to this Committee that it is important that we should give a lead in this matter of economy. [Interruption.] At present we are dealing with travelling facilities for Members of the House and that is sufficient for the time being.
The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) really argued the case for me just now when he said that in many cases it was more comfortable to travel third class in a certain form than to travel first class. When a Socialist Member of the House says that, why should not we all agree and say that the amount paid by the State should be third-class fares, and that, if anyone wants any additional frills, they can get them at their own expense. The great bulk of the community travels third class, and Members of the House of Commons are only, roughly speaking, the same sort of average as the rest of the community. [Interruption.] It is a pity that in this House any effort for economy should be treated with derision by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should think that many people in this country would be amazed to hear the kind of reception that is given by hon. Members opposite to a proposal that Members of Parliament should travel third class. I hope that the House may be given an opportunity to-day of registering an opinion by a free vote on this point. I would remind the Committee that this is the first time for, I think, seven years that this matter has come before the House in any shape or form. The last
time, curiously enough, was when a Socialist administration was in office and when these privileges were granted. There has been no opportunity since that time—

The CHAIRMAN: There will be an opportunity on the main Estimate. To enter into it now would be out of order.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is true, of course, that there is always an opportunity then, but the custom of the House is to take policy questions on main Estimates, and in actual fact there has been no expression of opinion on the matter in this House since 1924. In view of the parlous condition of the national finances, and of the fact that, although we have never yet reached the original Estimates for this charge, the cost has been going up year by year, I suggest that now is the time, seeing that we have the opportunity, when we should take a vote on the specific issue arising out of my proposed reduction, namely, as to whether in future it would not be adequate for Members to travel at the public expense third-class.

Mr. J. JONES: I am very interested M economy, because I have had to practise it all my life. When I hear hon. Members opposite talking about saving £6,000, and at the same time voting for the continuance of things that are costing the nation £1,000,000 a day in interest alone, I wonder what they mean by economy. They remind me of the story of the Scotsman who used a wart on the back of his neck for a collar stud. The hon. Member opposite, a great apostle of economy, forgets the possibility of saving some money by buying caps instead of hats. I have not used a voucher yet in the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House, not because I should not like to have one but because my business engagements as a trade union official compel me to travel to another part of London and not to the House of Commons to begin with. I get no financial advantage by signing vouchers or forms.
At the same time, I claim, as a public servant, that only the best is good enough for the people as a whole. I should like to see the abolition of all classes bar one, and that is the working class. We have only had these matters
discussed since Labour became sufficiently strong to be important. All this talk about economy is at our expense. Those who go to their constituencies in their Rolls Royces forget about those of us who have only boiled rice. I can get to my constituency for 8d. at any time. Others are not so fortunately placed, and I am prepared to support them in getting the best possible facilities. If they travel all night, why should they not travel under comfortable conditions?
I sometimes go across to the Continent as a trade union delegate, and I find that Members of Continental Parliaments have passes which take them not merely to their constituencies but all over the country. The difference, generally speaking, is that the railways are nationally owned. Some Members who talk about economy are railway directors, and they have a gold medal that enables them to travel where they like, and over other systems as well. They do not even pay for their food on the train. Everything is "buckshee." They are going to save this enormous amount of money, and I can see the National Debt dwindling to nothing. The hon. Member's name will go down to history as the man who saved England, in the time of her greatest financial difficulties, £6,000 per annum. It is enough to make an angel weep.
First-class travelling, after all, is not as good as it should be, even when you are paying for it. In the picture paper that I sometimes read I see most luxurious aeroplanes. Why should not a Member be allowed to have an aeroplane ride through his constituency? Suppose that one of his constituents had consumption, or the doctor had given him up, why should he not be allowed to fly down to see how he is getting on? I have been told that a member of the diplomatic corps, if his wife has a pain in her big toe, can fly from Teheran to London at Government expense. But a Member of Parliament must travel third. It reminds me of a story about the great Prince Bismarck. When a friend met him at a railway station getting into a third-class carriage and asked him why, he said he was riding third because there was no fourth. He was an economist of the type that we have in this House.
I am willing to travel on Shanks's pony if I cannot afford to pay the fare. The House of Commons is coming down to a very small thing when it is going to save the nation by reducing an Estimate by £6,000. It seems to me that the only object of this proposition is to give hon. Members opposite an opportunity of showing the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express" what a splendid knowledge they have of economy. I would undertake to say that to-night or some day this week they will spend more on one lunch than would pay for a Labour Member's railway fare to his consituency. I am sick and tired of it. I and some of my comrades have to pay out a lot more money than we can afford in expenses connected with being Members of this House. I do not think there are many Members who can represent their constituents for anything less than 15s. a day if they are going to do their duty at all. And we have this contemptible argument advanced that third-class is good enough for us. I say one class is good enough for all. We should get the best accommodation we can get, and the best you can get is what we are getting now. I do not get it, but I am not going to stop other people getting what I cannot have. I do not even begrudge the hon. and gallant Gentleman his top hat.
It is easy to lecture other people about economy, but real economy can only begin when you realise that it can start right at the top of the tree. If I ever want to discover where to start saving, I start with things that are not necessary. There are things which are not necessary for the stability and safety of the country, and that is where we ought to start, where we should save £1,000,000 a day and not £6,000 a year. I only hope hon. Members opposite will learn economy and will begin by trying to live as some of us have had to live. We know more about economy than those who have moved this Amendment. We saw one of our own Members the other day with a white wand in his hand, wearing a uniform that must have cost at least £50. He came in to tell us that something had happened in the House of Lords and to thank us for a Resolution that we had carried.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the Vote for Members' travelling expenses?

The CHAIRMAN: The comparison is not apropos to the subject matter under discussion, but I think the hon. Member has about finished.

Mr. JONES: I have nearly finished, Sir. We can start economy in the right way and in the right place, but in this case it is simply putting a sticking-plaster on a wooden leg. The real issues have been left untouched. Hon. Members opposite will never tackle the real problem. This attack upon railway travelling is a contemptuous proposition mainly levelled at us. Hon. Members have had all the advantages of luxury in living generally, and they are the first to come forward with this proposition. They would not have thought of it in the days when they had a majority. For seven years they let it slide and we are going to let it slide for 700. When you want to cut down expenses, begin at the right end, and we will all walk into the Lobby behind you. But we know you will never start. You will never tackle the people who could really save the money.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I think we all realise that this is a topic which is extraordinarily difficult to settle. I do not agree with my hon. Friend who contended that railways and vouchers should not be used in the Recess. To my mind, when anyone desires to undertake the obligations of a Member of Parliament he should live either in London or in his constituency, wherever he can best look after the interest of his constituents, and it is absurd in my opinion to say that during the Recess he should not be able to keep in close touch both with London and with his constituency. I could not afford houses in two places, and I had to select the one that seemed to offer the best opportunity of serving both the House of Commons and my constituency.
There is one suggestion that I should like to make. Many of us who go to railway stations at night have some little difficulty because the man behind the grill asks, "Week-end or ordinary?" That depends, of course, on the period of the year. You can go on a Friday or a Saturday night or for the Whitsun holiday, but that conveys little or nothing to the man who is asking for a ticket. He does not know whether it means a
saving or an expense and he says, "Give me the ordinary." Actually he is involving the State in £2 or £3 extra expense. There are a certain number of voucher users in the House and a certain number who never use them. London Members in districts served by tubes and the Underground never use them. Take the voucher users and find out exactly the amount that the vouchers come to annually. It might be several hundreds of pounds, or even run to a higher amount. This is a rough and ready suggestion which the hon. Member representing the Treasury might consider, and possibly whittle down to acceptable dimensions. Wash out the whole system of vouchers and tickets, whether first-class or third-class, and divide the money amongst the voucher users in addition to their £400 a. year. That would enable those who desired to travel first-class to do so, if they could afford it, and those who wanted to travel third-class could do so. They could use the money as they liked in visiting their constituents, or they need not visit their constituents at all, if they did not wish to do so. That would be a matter for their constituents and themselves. It would take away all the discussion on the question as to when a voucher should be used, and when a ticket was misused, and so on. It would be of further assistance to married Members of the House. There are occasions when Members travel to their constituencies with their wives and families, and they cannot afford a sufficient sum to enable their wives and families to go first-class, whereas they have a first-class ticket.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Surely they can take a third-class ticket.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: They go to the ticket office and hand in a voucher, and they are handed a first-class ticket, which they use, though they travel third-class with their wives and families. This is no doubt done in ignorance, but it means additional cost to the State. If we could wash out vouchers and tickets altogether and allow a Member to travel as he likes with a third-class ticket or a first-class ticket we should not add one penny to the cost. We should certainly, in my opinion, reduce it if we gave the right to Members to decide for themselves how they should travel, when they should travel and at what expense. This
is only a rough-and-ready suggestion, but it might be devised into something really worth while.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I rise to support the reduction of the Vote which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend, and at the outset I should like to say that I disagree with the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). It seems to me that he is getting away altogether from the original idea of free travel. What he is advocating is an increased allowance or an increased salary for certain Members of this House. He says that it is to give them the equivalent of railway travelling, but it does not necessarily follow at all.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member should follow up the matter in that way. The hon. and gallant Member was making a suggestion to the Minister, and the hon. and gallant Member who is now addressing the Committee is not in order in replying to that suggestion.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I bow to your Ruling at once, but I have always been under the impression that this Chamber was largely for the purposes of debate.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, it is for the purposes of debate. I said that discussion should only range over a very narrow field, but I agreed that suggestions might be made to the Minister, and the Minister has said he will consider the suggestions. I agreed to extend the discussion for that purpose, but not for the purpose of widening the discussion generally.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: If the Chairman considers that I have said anything which casts a reflection upon his Ruling I will certainly withdraw without a moment's hesitation. That is a great deal more than has been done on the other side of the Committee. I really think that the Committee are entitled to an explanation of something which fell from the Financial Secretary early in the Debate when he was presenting the Supplementary Estimate.
Giving one of his reasons for the increased cost of these travelling allowances, he used the words
Fewer Members have London houses, and consequently more travelling is done.
The Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I am distinctly under the impression that those were his exact words. It seems to indicate that the Financial Secretary is suggest-that Members use those vouchers to travel between Westminster and their homes. I cannot see that there is any other logical interpretation to be put upon that remark. It is definitely stated that that is not allowed; that vouchers are to be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is for the purpose of travelling between London and their constituencies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Their homes are there!"] There is the case of which the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) spoke when he said that on one occasion a Member was unable to visit his wife and family during the whole of the long Session because prior to the introduction of travelling warrants he had not the wherewithal to enable him to pay his railway fare. He entirely omitted the position of the poor man of to-day who does not live in his constituency and who is not able to visit his family the whole of the Session because he has not the wherewithal, and legitimately speaking the voucher does not entitle him to go to his home.
With regard to the mention made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) of the case of a man who had destroyed at least half a dozen return tickets, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) said that this was a most iniquitous thing to do, and that the man ought to have known what to do. I would inform the hon. Member for Springburn that I should not have known what to do. It is possible that one might take a return ticket in London and that sometimes a friend, who might be better off, might give you a lift back to London in his car. You have the return ticket in your pocket and you may not visit your constituency for some time, and the ticket may become out-of-date. I admit that I should not know what to do with it. It would be contrary to the rules
of the railway company to use it, and to throw it away would place an unnecessary burden upon the Treasury, and if you sent it back to the railway company and claimed a refund you would lay yourself open to the charge of taking the money—[An HON. MEMBER: "Return it to the Fees Office!"] Exactly. I know that perfectly well now that the hon. Member for Springburn has told us. I am quite sure that there are a large number of Members of the House who had no idea that the right thing to do was to return the ticket to the Fees Office.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it in order for an hon. Member to use a phrase, perhaps unknowingly, which might be seized upon by the Press outside, who are always ready to attack people, that when certain people have a return ticket which they do not use they can go to a railway company and get money refunded?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of Order.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I never made any suggestion of the kind, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well that I never intended to do so. I am going to suggest that in future a great deal of misunderstanding would be avoided if there was printed across the cover of the book of vouchers an instruction that if a. ticket was not used it must be returned to the Fees Office. That would tell everybody what ought to be done, and would not point the way to such misunderstandings as appear to have occurred.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I now appeal to the Committee to bring this discussion to an end? We have had a very full discussion lasting for two hours, and there is a great deal of other business to get through. I have not made any attempt to curtail what has been a very general Debate, and I feel that it is now time to bring it to an end. May I refer to a remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) and draw his attention to the fact that on the book of vouchers there are these words:
Should a Member not use the ticket issued in exchange for a voucher, he should immediately return the same to the Fees Office.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I do not think that they are upon mine.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is quite plain, and I am glad to say that the point is already covered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also took exception to something which I have said. He said I had pointed out that there was a considerable difference between the personnel of the last House of Commons and the present House of Commons, and that whereas in the last House of Commons many of the Members lived in London, at the present time there were many Members who had to travel every week, and he seemed to think that there is something peculiar about it. He forgets that a great many Members actually do reside in their constituencies, and that in the normal course of events they go back to their constituencies at the week-end. I was referring to the obvious fact that there was a difference, that whereas in the last Government a larger proportion of Members had houses in London, in the present case a larger proportion have their residences in the constituencies and go away from London every week-end. That fact is reflected in the Vote to which I have already referred. Whereas formerly the number using tickets was represented roughly as 460, it is represented more accurately now to be about 500. Since I spoke last several speeches have been made, and they have, nearly all of them, dealt with the one point of first or third-class.
The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) went as far as to move a reduction in the Vote of nearly the whole sum of £6,000 and he alleged that that could all be saved if henceforth travelling was third-class instead of first-class. Even if the Estimate dealt with travelling up to the end of March, that amount could not be saved in that time. The real fact is, that what comes into the financial year is the travelling up to the end of January, and as that is already past, no saving could be effected in the present year even if the system were changed. Therefore, the proposal to cut down the Estimate on the ground that the amount could be saved by travelling third-class is really quite contrary to the facts, because it could not be so at all.
6.0 p.m.
On the general question of substituting third-class for first-class. I would like
to put this fact before the Committee. The larger commercial and business houses of this country recognise to-day that it is in the interests of their business that their principal commercial travellers should travel first-class, and they give their commercial travellers first-class tickets. The principal local authorities give their principal officials permission to travel first-class, and over a long period of time officials of the Civil Service travelling on behalf of the main Ministries have travelled first-class. It is really an absurd suggestion that we should give Members of Parliament third-class tickets. A great many Members have important work to do during their travelling, and it is only in accordance with the practice which is carried out by all these Departments to which I have referred that Members of Parliament should be given at least the same facilities as those bodies give to their servants. The time of a Member of Parliament ought not to be wasted when, for a comparatively small additional sum, he can be given the opportunity of really using his time to good advantage. The hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) hoped that I would consult with Members of this House. We have had a good deal of consultation to-day, and I have heard a good many suggestions, all of which will be carefully considered. If there are any other suggestions which hon. Members wish to put before me, I shall be glad to consider them, and see what can be done, and, if the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon, knowing the position of the railway companies, chooses to bring forward any point, I shall be only too glad to pay full attention to anything that he may suggest. Now that we have had 2¼ hours of discussion, and we have a good deal of other business to get through, I hope that hon. Members will not think it necessary to continue the discussion.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not want to detain the Committee, but it is about time that something was said from this side in favour of first-class travelling as against third-class travelling. The conditions imposed upon people who go into public life in this country are as near intolerable as possible, and, if you make
things much more difficult for them, nobody will ever go into public life. There is nothing to be got out of being a Member of Parliament. Hon. Members on both aides will agree with me in that statement. We have very onerous duties to perform, and I do not believe there is any section of the population in this country who are more overworked and worse paid than politicians of all parties. We get all the kicks, none of the praise, and no thanks of any sort or kind for anything that we may do. We have the very severe and onerous constitutional duty imposed upon us of interpreting government of the democracy to the democracy in a democratic country, and the only people who have to do that are Members of Parliament. I sit for a Scottish constituency, and I can only say that while it is quite all right to take a twopenny tube down to a local London constituency—it does not matter whether you travel first-class or third-class there—anyone can tell the difference between travelling to Aberdeen first-class or third-class. Travelling first-class, it is quite all right, but travelling third-class for 12 hours to Aberdeen is the nearest approach to hell that can be imagined. I can only say this to hon. Members: if you make us travel third-class you will have to give us a Parliament in Edinburgh, because we will not come to London.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not entirely agree with the reasoning of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I rise chiefly in order to point out the implications of what the Financial Secretary said. He said that we ought to travel first-class because the Civil Service and the servants of municipal authorities travel first-class. I should have thought that one of the best ways of getting the Civil Service to cut down their already ponderous estimates, and to get the local authorities to cut down their estimates, is to set an example from this House. It is quite astonishing to hear the ribaldry and facetiousness with which any attempt at economy is received in this House. It is true that we are dealing only with a small sum to-day, just as we dealt with a very large sum yesterday, but it does not matter whether we deal with a large sum or a small sum, the facetiousness and ribaldry on the opposite benches is marked, and
it is also marked by the taxpayers of this country.
With much of what the hon. Member for East Aberdeen said I am in entire agreement. I do not think anybody ought to be asked to take the long journey to Scotland on public business as a third-class passenger. Third-class travelling is not comfortable enough for that distance, and persons would probably travel first-class even if it involved financial sacrifice at their own expense, but I think the Treasury ought to be able to make a distinction between people who have to take these long journeys and people who have only to take short journeys. [Interruption.] Why do hon. Members opposite get this superiority complex? I am proud of the fact that I am one of His Majesty's counsel, and in the exercise of my professional duties I have to travel very considerable distances all over the South and West of England, and I always travel third-class. I always do a good deal of professional work on the way up and down to my places, while travelling third-class, but when I go on public business, which is no more onerous and certainly no more taxing to those cerebral resources which I possess, I have the pleasure of travelling first-class, although I see people perhaps of greater enlightenment and perhaps doing better work than myself travelling third-class.
Members of Parliament could do a service out of all proportion to the amount that we could save on this Vote by setting an example of a determination to accept the advice which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the need for ruthless and rigid economy. It is for that reason that I hope the Financial Secretary will not overlook the possibility of arranging that in cases where, for example, a night journey is to be taken, first-class facilities should still be afforded to Members of Parliament, but that in cases where there is no more than a few hours journey involved, third-class facilities, such as are enjoyed by the rest of the community, and taxpayers in particular, is all that a Member of Parliament ought to ask. [HON. MEMBERS: "You start it!"] Hon. Members suggest that I should start it. Possibly I am one of very few Members of this House who have this to his credit that I have, at least on one occasion, taken a third-class ticket with my first
class voucher. I recommend that to hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS:" On one occasion!"] Yes. If one has it shoved under one's nose that one can have a first-class ticket for the asking, most of us are human enough to take what is offered.
There are one or two other ways in which this Vote might be cut down, and I would recommend them to the Financial Secretary. He seemed to be unduly sniffy, if I may use a vulgarism, about any idea of bargaining with the railway companies. Why not bargain? Why not say to the railway company: "Mr. X last year travelled to Nottingham so many dozen times. If he had taken a season ticket for the year it would have been cheaper. Only charge for Mr. X the season ticket rate for the year." I can see nothing wrong in a bargain of that kind, made at the end of the year. In that way the Treasury would be limited to the amount that would be represented by the season ticket charge, as if the season ticket rate had been entered into in the first instance. That seems to be one way in which to control the expenditure to the extent of, at any rate, the cost of the season ticket.
There is another way for saving money which is not possible under the present method. My home happens to be between my constituency and London. Although I may travel from London to my constituency I am not allowed to travel from my home to my constituency. That is a pure waste of money. As I have credited myself with some virtue in one respect I might as well admit that I have committed an apparent fraud in another respect, in that I have taken a ticket from London to my constituency, but only boarded the train half way to my constituency, because it was near my home, having journeyed to my home by car. In that way the taxpayers have been deprived of the value of the saving represented by the journey between one's home and London. That is a small matter, but there are many hon. Members who if the ticket were available between their homes and their constituency would be able to save small sums of money for the taxpayer. If this was a private business, and we were looking into this matter with a sincere desire to cut down expense, we should be able to do so in
these ways, and I recommend them to the Financial Secretary. He need not be the least bit ashamed that the Committee have spent some time in discussing this matter, because it indicates a desire on the part of Members of Parliament that public money should not be wasted in travelling expenses.

Mr. BRACKEN: I am one of those Members of Parliament who represents a London constituency and lives near my constituency and who, therefore, never uses a voucher. I do not want to deal with this question on party lines, but I do think that the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) deserves very careful consideration. I think the public who take any interest in the Debates in this House will feel that the proceedings this afternoon have been scandalous. The hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) has made a number of his well-known jokes, and hon. Members opposite have indulged in a series of silly interjections—

Mr. LEES: Get on with the case.

Mr. BRACKEN: Hon. Members opposite have indulged in a series of silly interjections—[Interruption.] This is a very serious matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hands out of your pockets!"] I shall do what I think fit. If I had such manners as hon. Members opposite, I would—[Interruption.] This is the way that a very considerable sum of public money is thrown away. Hon. Members opposite take the line that it is impossible for a man to do public work when travelling in a third-class carriage. I was travelling on the Great Western Railway the other day and I saw the Archbishop of York who, I presume, was doing public work, travelling in a third-class carriage. When the Financial Secretary tells us, quite seriously, that because a number of commercial firms allow their employés to travel first-class, and a number of municipalities follow their example, that is a, reason why the House of Commons should do likewise. It was a most extraordinary argument. Has not the House of Commons to set an example to these wasteful local authorities? Is the Financial Secretary so careless of his duties that he seriously gets up in the House of Commons and declares
that because a number of wealthy private firms pay first-class fares for their employés, the House of Commons must not ask its Members to travel third-class.
Before these vouchers were granted Members of all parties always travelled third-class. Yet hon. Members come to the House this afternoon and indulge in a long series of silly jokes about public money. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) told us, in a very agreeable speech, that we are charged with the duty of interpreting democracy to the people and that, therefore, we ought to travel in first-class carriages. I should have thought that we could interpret democracy better if we talked to them in third-class carriages. Every hon. Member who wishes to save public money ought to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Central Nottingham. I hope that hon. Members will vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may think this is a very funny subject—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary asked us to get on with the business, but we are interrupted by the gruff guffaw of the Under-Secretary of State for Air who if he is not insulting Lady Houston is behaving like a yahoo. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!] I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The speech to which we have just listened—

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order, and as a matter of information, can you inform us Mr. Dunnico whether the word "yahoo" is disorderly or not?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): The word "yahoo" is very vague and indefinite in its application.

Mr. SKELTON: Is there not, a difference between saying that an hon. Member is behaving like a yahoo and that he is a yahoo?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the word "yahoo" is out of order unless it was intended to be offensive, but such expressions do not add to the tone of the Debate.

Mr. BRACKEN: I rise to say that if the zoological description I used offended any hon. Member I withdraw it, but I
would remind you Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that I was being grossly interrupted by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. HARDIE: Should not an hon. Member who uses the word "yahoo" try to know exactly what it implies, because it is a word which refers to a certain animal who does certain things.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

Mr. WILLIAMS: After that slight interruption, may I congratulate the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on his speech. However great the force of example may be I think we should realise that if this House of Commons, the greatest institution of its kind in the world, as the first act of economy decided to cut down its travelling allowance from first class to third class it would not be good business in any sense of the word so far as the outside world is concerned. I know of no great firm which would consider it good business, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Aberdeen on getting a wider and more intelligent outlook on life. He may soon rise to the intelligence of an ordinary Englishman. I want to make one suggestion to the Financial Secretary. I do not understand why the Treasury should not come to some agreement with the railway companies. I should have thought it possible to take a block of hon. Members, say from Glasgow or Birmingham, and say to the railway companies that for a period of years so many hon. Members would be coming from Glasgow or Birmingham, practically from the same station, and issue something in the nature of an annual ticket which would take the hon. Member to and from his constituency, and that the ticket should be available over any line. There is no

great harm in that and it could be easily done. It would be much more difficult in the case of hon. Members from large and scattered constituencies, like Ross and Cornwall, you have a different proposition to face there, but in the case of a' block of Members living in a comparatively small area something possible on these lines might be done.

There is one point in the original Estimate which the Financial Secretary has twice tried to explain and has not yet succeeded in. explaining to the satisfaction of many hon. Members. That is the £4,000 which he forgot about in the original Estimate. He attributes this to the fact that there was a General Election at the time. He has entirely failed to explain why he made this gross omission, and this fact alone entitles us to vote for the reduction. The difference between the original Estimate and the new is £6,000, about one-sixth of the Estimate. That is so large a proportion that it is quite clear that the Treasury are not exercising the care they should or that something quite unexpected has happened. We have heard nothing to lead us to suppose that anything really unexpected has happened, and we are therefore led to the conclusion that the Treasury in administering their own Estimates are loose and slack. It is the clear duty of this Committee to vote for the reduction to show that we are determined that this kind of loose bad budgetting, typical of the Financial Secretary and his leader the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall be stopped at the earliest possible moment.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,210, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 258.

Division No. 166.]
AYES.
[6.25 p.m.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Campbell, E. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Balniel, Lord
Christie, J. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Edmondson, Major A. J,


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Wetton-s-M.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colfox, Major William Philip
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Colman, N. C. D.
Ferguson, Sir John


Bracken, B.
Colville, Major D. J.
Fermoy, Lord


Brass, Captain Sir William
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fielden, E. B.


Briscoe, Richard George
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Buchan, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Ganzonl, Sir John


Butler, R. A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gower, Sir Robert


Granville, E.
Longden, F.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Markham, S. F.
Smithen, Waldron


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hammersley, S. S.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Hanbury, C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Train, J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Penny, Sir George
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hurd, Percy A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Major I.
Withers, Sir John James


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Savery, S. S.



Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Simms, Major-General J.
Captain Crookshank and Captain


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Cazalet.


Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jenkins, Sir William


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Devlin, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Ammon, Charles George
Dukes, C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Angell, Sir Norman
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Rt. Hon Lell (Camborne)


Arnott, John
Edmunds, J. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Atkinson, C.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Egan, W. H.
Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Eimley, Viscount
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kelly, W. T.


Barnes, Alfred John
Foot, Isaac
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Barr, James
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kinley, J.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kirkwood, D.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Knight, Holford


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lathan, G.


Benson, G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gill, T. H.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glassey, A. E.
Lawrence, Susan


Bowen, J. W.
Gossling, A. G.
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gray, Milner
Lawson, John James


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bromfield, William
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leach, W.


Brooke, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Brothers, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lees, J.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lindley, Fred W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Buchanan, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Logan, David Gilbert


Burgess, F. G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lowth, Thomas


Cameron, A. G.
Harbord, A.
Lunn, William


Cape, Thomas
Hardie, George D.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Charleton, H. C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McElwee, A.


Chater, Daniel
Haycock, A. W.
McEntee, V. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
McKinlay, A.


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
MacLaren, Andrew


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
McShane, John James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Herrlotts, J.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (Nthampton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R.,Wentworth)
Manning, E. L.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
March, S.


Cove, William G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Marcus, M.


Cowan, D. M.
Hopkin, Daniel
Marley, J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Marshall, Fred


Daggar, George
Horrabin, J. F.
Mathers, George


Dallas, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Matters, L. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Maxton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Isaacs, George
Mills, J. E.




Milner, Major J.
Romeril, H. G.
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Montague, Frederick
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Rowson, Guy
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morley, Ralph
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sanders, W. S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sandham, E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Tools, Joseph


Mort, D. L.
Scott, James
Tout, W. J.


Muggerldge, H. T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Townend, A. E.


Murnin, Hugh
Scurr, John
Vaughan, David


Naylor, T. E.
Sexton, Sir James
Viant, S. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Walkden, A. G.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walker, J.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.
Wallace, H. W.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shield, George William
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watkins, F. C.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shillaker, J. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermling)


Palin, John Henry
Shinwell, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Paling, Wilfrid
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Palmer, E. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Weish, James C. (Coatbridge)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
West, F. R.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lndywood)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Price, M. P.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Pybus, Percy John
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Sorensen, R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wise, E. F.


Raynes, W. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Sullivan, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ritson, J.
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. I should like you, Mr. Dunnico, to give me some information upon this point. Is it still possible for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have voted for third-class tickets, to make a request to the Treasury that they shall be supplied with third-class tickets, and, if so, will that be done?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that is a point of Order. It is always open to an hon. Member to make any application to a Minister, and it is for the Minister either to grant that application or decline to do so.

Mr. TOOLE: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the vouchers themselves stipulate that the Member applying for a ticket can apply for a first-class, third-class or week-end ticket?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can only give a Ruling upon a point of Order, but no point of Order arises here.

Mr. WISE: I wish to put this point of Order, Mr. Dunnico. Is it not the case that under the Vote which we have just taken, if an hon. Member travels to his constituency third-class and on a third-class ticket, only third-class fare is
charged up to the Treasury, and that therefore it is open to any hon. Member who desires to do so, to make that saving?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These are questions for the Minister and not for the Chair.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that those who voted for third-class voted for third-class travelling for us, but travel first-class themselves—[Interruption].

Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Chair is being appealed to on points of Order, and hon. Members must remain silent if I am to hear what are the points of Order. It is perfectly clear, however, that no point of Order can now be raised on the Vote which has already been taken. That matter is ended.

Colonel GRETTON: My point of Order is quite different. I wish to ask if hon. Members who desire to raise this question again, will be able to so on the Report stage of the Vote?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is always open to hon. Members to raise a question on the Report stage of a Vote if it is in order.

GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): This Supplementary Estimate is made necessary by the fact that some of the delegations to the Imperial Conference were larger than anticipated, and also because of the fact that the expenses in connection with one of the delegations, which were not chargeable to the fund on the previous occasion, were so chargeable this year. In framing the original Estimate we were unable to take these matters into account because we did not know, first, that larger delegations were coming or, secondly, that these expenses which were not chargeable previously would be chargeable this time. That is as far as the Imperial Conference is concerned. Then, in relation to the visits of Royalties and Heads of States, we had no knowledge of those visits when the original Estimate was prepared. Those three causes account for the increase in expenditure which we are asking the Committee to sanction in this Supplementary Estimate. It has not been customary since the late Lord Harcourt was in charge of this Vote, to discuss the details of the expenditure, and I do not think the Committee, on this occasion, will require me to go into those details. Therefore, I think that no further explanation is necessary in regard to this expenditure.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and I do not wish to raise any point of detail on this Estimate. As a matter of fact, all these details come before the Comptroller and Auditor - General and the Public Accounts Committee and this Committee may be assured that a due and proper check is maintained on this expenditure. I would point out, however, that there is a very considerable increase in the total amount disbursed—in fact a larger increase than would appear at first sight, because the original Estimate showed a considerable increase over the Estimate
of the previous year. The previous year's Estimate began in 1929 with a figure of £15,000. There was then a Supplementary Estimate of £9,000 making £24,000 in all for that year. The original Estimate this year, instead of being £24,000 was £36,000 and now we are asked for £11,000 on top of that. The Committee will agree that there is a substantial sum in question.
Hon. Members will see if they look at the White Paper, that this is one of the services in connection with which any unexpended balance remaining on 31st March is not liable to surrender to the Exchequer. It is obvious, from the statement in the next paragraph to the effect that already a sum of £10,000 has been advanced to this Fund out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, that there will not be any large unexpended balance at the end of this year, but if there is any balance, I presume it is carried forward from year to year. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has any cash balance at his disposal, but I have come across a curious little fact in the report of the Public Accounts Committee from which it appears that the fund in fact contains a certain amount of commodity reserves—what we might perhaps call liquid reserves. I observe from a report made to the Public Accounts Committee on the fund, that the fund buys its own wines and cigars and apparently maintains a reserve of them for use at public functions. I assume that these are only stock reserves but I should like to know what balance, if any, the right hon. Gentleman anticipates will be left in the fund on 31st March. Otherwise, it is quite in keeping with the usual practice that we should not press the right hon. Gentleman too hard for details of expenditure on certain missions, but no doubt there may be some other questions which will arise on the Vote in general. I would only repeat, in case any hon. Members has any suspicion that the fund is not duly accounted for, that the Public Accounts Committee exercises a check on the fund, and the right hon. Gentleman's Department accounts to the Public Accounts Committee for it.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: I should not question the policy which the right hon. Gentleman put forward that the actual objects of the hospitality under this fund
should not be made a matter of debate in this Committee. It is generally recognised that the fund is a good institution, and that for such objects as the Imperial Conference it is inevitable that, whatever may be the position of national finance, there should be expenditure in the way of hospitality. Equally, under such conditions as the present, the Vote should not come before the Committee without some expression of opinion to indicate that the Committee are conscious of the extreme gravity of the national financial situation, and that a special standard of economy should be applied even to such a matter as national hospitality. It is very pleasant, and in accordance with the dignity of the nation, that in an ordinary year a wider view should be taken as to what can be done out of this fund, but it is equally in accordance with the spirit of the nation that at such a time as this the Committee should consider the expression of an opinion that a very special measure of economy should be observed, and that not a penny should be spent that is not inevitable for public purposes.
I should like to press for an answer to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) in relation to the form of these Estimates. Is it not somewhat unusual that in a case where there is no surrender of the balance, the expenditure should be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Where the expenditure is accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, are there any cases in which no surrender is made of the balance? I should have doubted whether that was so, and there certainly seems to be an extension, which is not desirable, of the ordinary forms of our financial control by, in such a case as this, the balance not being surrendered. What is the object in this case of having no surrender of the balance? That condition is commonly applied to Grants-in-Aid where the Grants are made under special conditions. The special conditions which lead to there being a waiving of the condition of surrender, are that the object or bodies to which the grant is made have a continuing purpose which goes on from year to year, and it is desirable that some
reserve or fund should be accumulated. Surely this is not a case of that sort; it is not a case in which there is any single continuing purpose. It is a case of expenditure which ought quite definitely to be under the direct control from time to time of the Treasury and the House of Commons. It appears to me, therefore, that this is not at all an appropriate case for waiving the condition of surrender.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman dealing with something that arises on the Supplementary Estimate?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am dealing with something that arises so directly on the Supplementary Estimates that it has been found necessary to print it on page 6 in order to explain the Supplementary Estimate to us. The rules of Order are that discussions on Supplementary Estimates are restricted, but I trust that we are not so restricted that we cannot discuss something which is put down in black and white on the Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Minister in charge of this Supplementary Estimate thinks it necessary to print certain information on the Vote, I cannot prevent hon. Members discussing it.

Sir H. YOUNG: This is really quite relevant because the fact that we are making an additional Vote this year might lead to there being a balance, and it is pertinent to discuss the distribution of the balance which we may be creating by our Vote to-day. The Financial Secretary will expect the inevitable questions which are always addressed to the Financial Secretary, and ought always to be addressed to him, whenever there is a borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund. It is a very convenient expedient, but it is apt to loosen the strings of control; and in order to prevent that loosening becoming too great, it is proper on these occasions to ask for reassurances on familiar topics, such as, for instance, whether there were any savings against which the present expenditure could be set.
More particularly, I want to ask whether this is the earliest possible opportunity on which covering authority
for the borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund could be obtained. To read between the lines of the Supplementary Estimate suggests that there has been a certain delay. Some of this expenditure was taken for the Imperial Conference, which was at a date which is not very proximate. Under these conditions, the inquiry is suggested as to whether the earliest possible opportunity has been taken for setting right the borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund. If it has not, the Financial Secretary will be the first to recognise that that is not in accordance with the most correct practice.

Captain CAZALET: When distinguished foreigners come to this country, or when conferences are held here, a certain amount of hospitality must be given by the Government, and it would inappropriate to question in detail how the hospitality has been administered. I am certain that under the present Government it has been well done. In the past year there have been three large conferences—the Naval, the Imperial, and the Indian Conferences—and the question has been raised by many people whether the hotel expenses of the delegates have been paid by the Government. I should be glad if the Minister would answer that question, and so allay a certain amount of public anxiety in regard to the amount of money which the Government are spending in hospitality of one kind and another.

Earl WINTERTON: I agree with the opening remarks of the Minister in introducing this Estimate, and as one who remembers the day when the late Lord Harcourt originated the Government Hospitality Fund, I am glad that whatever Government is in power, the admirable rule is adhered to, not only by the two Front Benches, but by the Back Benches, of not criticising in detail the manner in which the fund is spent. It would be very ungracious to criticise it, and it might be wounding to those whom we honour as our guests in this country. I do not object to the size of the Vote, but I agree with everything that has been said as to the method of its presentation. Two questions which I want to raise are concerned with the actual distribution of the money. The first relates to the question of the accommodation which is pro-
vided for foreign guests at hotels. The Board of Trade are interesting themselves in the "Come to Britain" movement, one of the objects of which is to improve the accommodation available at London hotels. I suggest that the Government Hospitality Fund should work in with that policy by encouraging the newer hotels and sending some of the guests, who are provided for out of the fund, to those hotels.
Information reached me from more than one quarter that some of the delegates at a certain conference last year were not wholly satisfied with the accommodation provided them through the fund at one of the hotels. I am not blaming the Department, but this is an imporant matter, for the way he is treated makes the whole difference sometimes whether a distinguished foreign visitor who comes here grants what we want him to grant. In addition to the admirable officer who is the head of the fund, and who allocates accommodation, I presume that there is someone well versed in the hotel world who is able to advise the officials of the fund whether such and such an hotel is giving value for the money which is spent. The other matter to which I wish to refer is the coldness of Lancaster House. It has been responsible among many distinguished visitors and Members of this House and of another place for many colds and influenza attacks. Lancaster House, I believe, is generously loaned by the London County Council—

Mr. LANSBURY: It. is a Government building.

Earl WINTERTON: Would it not be possible to warm the place III some way? I have heard some criticism of the chilly feeling due not only to the physical atmosphere, but to the fact that the building gives the impression of having been stripped of all its furniture. It is not a very liveable place. So far as the food, drink and cigars are concerned, the Hospitality Fund has every reason to congratulate itself, but the conditions at Lancaster House might be improved. All sides of the Committee will agree that it is important to impress our foreign guests with the way in which we "do" them when they come to this country.

7.0 p.m.

Major GLYN: May I draw attention to the extraordinary satisfaction which the officers of this fund give to many dis-
tinguished guests when they are over here. It is not frequent that one can express this feeling, but I have heard from many delegates that the officers of the Department give the utmost satisfaction. It is noticeable to some of our Dominion guests that they are charged excessively high prices at some hotels for incidentals. A friend of mine from Canada was charged phenomenal sums for an apple which he found did not come from Canada. Little matters of that sort might well be dealt with by the Government Hospitality Fund, and an attempt made to include these incidental charges. It is these things charged to the private account, not the Government account, of an individual staying at one of these hotels which make it very expensive. I was told, on the authority of the head of one of the Delegations, that they were very dissatisfied at the very high amount charged for an extra breakfast, a whisky and soda, and matters of that sort. It is just those small things which make a great deal of difference. If the right hon. Gentleman would consult his officers who deal with these matters, I am sure the hotels in London would be ready to co-operate in getting over the difficulties.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will deal with the financial points which have been raised. Like any other grant-in-aid, these amounts are not surrendered to the Treasury at the end of the year. It is exactly the same with similar grants such as the Empire Marketing Board grant-in-aid, the Forestry Commission grant-in-aid, and the Smallholdings grant-in-aid. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know why they are accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I should have thought that that was the most natural course. Theo House of Commons does not take these accounts in detail, and it is natural that someone should do it, and it is done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who reports to the Public Accounts Committee. As to his question about the Civil Contingencies Fund, this Estimate has been presented to the House of Commons at the first reasonable opportunity. It covers a number of small items, and the total of these items which it has been possible to reach has been
presented. The balance at present may be estimated at something like £400.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It will be seen that this refers to the Imperial Conference, visits of heads of States and foreign Ministers. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to separate the sum between these various heeds, but, when we are asked to find a very large sum of money like this, we might have his assurance that all the main items up to 31st March have been settled. Such an assurance would be satisfactory to the whole Committee. One big conference has been mentioned, and I would like to know if all the amounts incurred up to 31st January have been rendered and are covered by this Vote. I do not want to see very large expenses coming in in the last month or two of this year and charged to next year. I would like to know what actually happens to the balance of this sum of £10,000. There is a balance of £400, but the hon. Gentleman did not make clear what the proceedings are.
I do not profess to be a financial expert, but when I find a grave difference of opinion between a real financial expert on this side of the Committee and a semi-financial expert on the other side of the Committee—[Interruption.] This is a large addition of nearly a third of the original Estimate, and we have nearly doubled the normal sum this year. It was £24,000 two years ago and is now £47,000, so that in a short time the Estimate has been practically doubled, which is a very serious position. Then there is the fact that some of this £10,000 is in the form of wines and cigars. One or two of my hon. Friends want to know where they are kept, and how they are stored.

Mr. B. SMITH: And who has got the key.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not the point. When the taxpayers' money has been invested in these goods, we are justified in trying to find out if they are properly stored. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Office of Works has them under his personal charge, they will be all right. I would like an assurance on that matter, as some of us have taken a great interest in it. Above all, I would like to know whether the accounts are up to date.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: I agree it would be ungracious to criticise these Estimates in view of the hospitality which is always extended to Members of Parliament who go overseas. Some reference has been made to Lancaster House. That is the dreariest place to which to ask anyone. One might as well take the British Museum and give a reception there. It is cold and inhospitable, and the right hon. Gentleman should consult his advisers and see if he can find a home that will be more appreciated by the guests of the Government.

Commander SOUTHBY: A point has been brought out which came rather as news to Members of this Committee, that part of the funds are invested in cigars and wine. I do not cavil at that. It is an excellent suggestion. Is the balance of £400 represented by stock?

Mr. LANSBURY: No.

Commander SOUTHBY: What is the value of the stock, and has any portion of this sum gone to replenish the stock and keep it up to the standard which the right hon. Gentleman considers proper?

Mr. LANSBURY: On the question of wines and cigars, there is a very efficient committee which takes charge of that point. The key of the place where the stock is kept is not in my possession, although, as this Committee knows, it would be perfectly safe with me, because I am that very vicious person who neither drinks nor smokes. Perhaps I would be the right sort of person to have charge.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Are they all Empire goods?

Mr. LANSBURY: As far as possible, they are Empire goods, but only as far as possible. We expect that the money balance will be £400. I would like to assure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that the accounts are all up-to-date and that we have nothing hidden away. We are not dodging our creditors, but we are paying them on the nail, as most hotel bills are paid. As to the accommodation in hotels, I would like to say a word on behalf of one of
the officials of my Department. Ministers often get a good deal of credit for work done by their Department with which they have not had much to do. This work may look easy on paper but it is not so easy, as anyone who has anything to do with it knows, and Major Crankshaw works extremely hard, is extremely careful and is extremely economical. He does his very best to get the best accommodation at the best terms. As to whether all the expenses are paid, there may be incidentals at the hotels which are not included in the arrangements that are made. With regard to accommodation at the hotels, Major Crankshaw is continually consulting and doing all he can to get the best and most economical accommodation.

Earl WINTERTON: I did not realise that Major Crankshaw was in charge. If he is, then, with all his knowledge and experience, no question can arise.

Mr. LANSBURY: As to Lancaster House and the cold there, one of the rulers of our country visited that House when it was occupied by one of the Peers of the Realm and it is on record that, when he arrived, he said, "I come from my cottage to visit your palace." I do not understand all this criticism of Lancaster House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Colds."] Well, I did not get my cold there. We are making improvements to the ventilation. [Interruption.] Ventilation is an important question where colds are concerned. It is possible to have a good draught, and yet not to have proper ventilation, and we are going to take care of people properly when they go there. We will look into the question of whether the place can he warmed and made bearable for the people who attend dinner parties or other functions there. I would only repeat that those who are doing the work for the Department give a great deal of attention to their duties.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask one more question? Does this expenditure cover the Indian Conference?

Mr. LANSBURY: It does not cover the whole expenses of the Indian Conference, but certain expenses in connection with it.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commission and the Expenses of the Commission.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This Supplementary Estimate for a token sum has been presented in order to obtain Parliamentary approval for the payment of travelling expenses to the members of the Public Works Loan Commission. We thought it desirable to make it clear to Parliament that money was being spent in this way.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would like to ask one question regarding the form of the Vote, because it is a little difficult to follow. It appears to be a Vote for £10, in addition to £10 asked for previously, making a total of £20, but the question is complicated by a note at the bottom of the page 7:
The sum of £50 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund and a corresponding amount is required to enable repayment to be made to that fund.
At first sight, the Committee might be excused for wondering how an advance of £50 is to be repaid out of but I imagine it is brought forward in this form in order to enable a transfer to be made from sub-head A to sub-head B. I admit our expenditure has to be jealously guarded, but I suggest to the Financial Secretary that he might well consider whether, in a case of this kind, it would not be possible to have a general covering sanction which would enable the Department to make minor transfers of this kind without coming to Parliament for approval. This is a particularly interesting case, because the incidentals are set out in the most minutely particularised fashion. They are stated in the original Vote in a fashion which is quite unusual. They go into details about cab hire, telegrams and telephones, items which usually appear as incidental expenses. I think that in future some such action as I have suggested might be taken. I imagine the explanation I have given is the right explanation, but if there is any other, perhaps the hon. Member will tell us.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The explanation is that we thought it desirable to obtain Parliamentary sanction for this expenditure. If the sum had been merely an addition to existing expenditure no such difficulty would have arisen, but owing to the fact that this is a new form of expenditure, we thought it right to get the sanction of the House of Commons.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This was, I thought, merely a case of the Government requiring some additional expenditure, but it now appears that this is an altogether new form of expenditure. The Financial Secretary has not, however, explained the reason for it. I had thought it was the same class of expenditure as is usually set out in incidental expenses, such as small travelling charges, in which case I imagined it was hardly necessary to go through all this form if there could have been a general covering sanction.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: I thought I had made things clear, and I am sorry if I have not. Hitherto, nothing has been paid to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for travelling expenses. The Commissioners have been people who either lived in London or frequently had business in London, and the meetings were held at times when they could attend without difficulty. As the Committee knows, additional Members were recently appointed, and as they come from the provinces some of them have found it necessary to ask for payment of their travelling expenses and accommodation. It is not suggested that they are to have any emoluments for what they do. It is only payment of their out-of-pocket expenses for travelling and lodgings.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am sure the Committee are obliged to the Financial Secretary. The only other question I have now to ask is whether he can tell us what the actual expenditure will be?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The amount is stated. It is £75.

Sir H. YOUNG: It appears that we are introducing a new practice in connection with the work of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Hitherto
it has been unnecessary to provide for their travelling expenses, but it has become necessary owing to a change in the composition of the Commission. I do not think the occasion calls for more than one comment, and that is, that it is perhaps rather to be regretted that a Commission which formerly conducted the whole of its work in an entirely voluntary manner has now become to this small extent a charge on the public funds. I really do not know, indeed, why we should be called upon to vote this money, because is it not the case that the expenditure of the Public Works Loan Commission is, by Act of Parliament, to be defrayed out of the Local Loans Fund? If the Local Loan, Fund stands behind the expenses of the Commission, why should it be necessary to adopt this rather cumbrous procedure of making a payment out of the Civil Contingencies Fund and submitting this Supplementary Estimate? It may be that it is only possible to have recourse to the Local Loans Fund in the following year, and if that is so it may he an imperfection in that legislation which it may be worth while to consider on a future occasion, because the intention of the Act appeared to he that the Local Loans Fund should finance the work of the Public Works Loan Commission.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is really passing beyond the scope of this Vote. I understand that it is submitted for the special purpose of paying certain expenses of members of the Commission, and our discussion must be kept to that point.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether any of the travelling expenses of the Public Works Loan Commissioners have been incurred in connection with lands and farms which may be held by the Commission under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what connection that legislation has with this Supplementary Estimate.

Sir H. O'NEILL: I was only asking whether any of the travelling expenses which we are now being asked to meet were incurred in connection with a particular service, and surely that is in order. Under the Agricultural Credits
Act, 1923, power was given to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance on mortgage sums of money to agricultural associations.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I can answer that question straight away. The answer is in the negative. This is simply expenditure incurred in attending meetings of the Commission.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it in order for a Member from Northern Ireland to come here to raise these small points in view of the fact that only yesterday we voted a sum of money towards building the Law Courts in Northern Ireland?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. Any hon. Member of this House is entitled to ask a question on the business before us.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but the right hon. Baronet should have some sense of proportion.

Captain CAZALET: I am not certain whether this is quite so simple a matter as it would at first sight appear to be. We are told that certain members of the Public Works Loan Commission have asked for payment of out-of-pocket travelling expenses when attending meetings of the Commission, and that is a perfectly simple proposition, but when we refer to the more elaborate Civil Service Estimates and look into the details we find that the total expenses of this Vote will be met out of certain fees appropriated in aid of this Vote. In so far as these expenses are not met by that means, they will be met from the Local Loans Fund, and probably next year these expenses will be met out of that particular fund. In that case, I understand that this sum will be repaid next year, and I would like to know if I am correct in that assumption.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that this is a very simple matter, but that is not so, because it is extremely complicated. How is it that on the present occasion, quite suddenly, we have these travelling expenses in connection with the Public Works Loan Commission, and why has there been such a colossal increase in the amount of their travelling expenses? We have been told that some of these Commissioners came from the country, but he did not say from which
country they came. Is it a fact that some of them came from Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Torquay!"] I do not mind whether they came from Torquay or anywhere else, but I want to know where they come from, and what they have been doing for this money.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the hon. Member that this Commission was appointed by the House?

Mr. CULVERWELL: May I remind you, Mr. Dunnico, that when these Commissioners were appointed, there was no question of paying their expenses?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not concerned at this moment as to whether the Commissioners were to be paid their expenses or not. They were appointed by the House, and we cannot have a long discussion on the point raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) as to who they are and where they came from.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should never think of initiating anything in the nature of a long discussion on this point. It has already been pointed out that, for practical purposes, there was no necessity to bring forward this Estimate, and on this point the Financial Secretary seems to have hoodwinked my hon. Friends on the front Opposition Bench. It was quite needless to put down this Estimate. I feel convinced that this money is going astray. There has been a proportionately large addition to the original sum, and no reason has been given why the amount has been increased. I should like to have an assurance as to whether this great addition to the cost of travelling is in any way injuring the work of the Public Works Loan Commission, because I do not want anything to be done that would tend to hinder the excellent work of that body. Again and again we have had these little additions to items of this kind without any explanation being given, and it is most unfortunate that an Estimate of this kind should be brought forward in this way. There is no justification for it, and still less justification for the representatives of the Government knowing so very little about it.

Commander SOUTHBY: I would like to ask whether it is the intention to pay the travelling expenses of all the members of the Public Works Loan Com-
mission? Is it understood that now all the members of that body are in need of being paid for their services? I am not arguing that certain members of the Commission should not be paid their expenses when they come up to London to do public work, but I would like to know how many members of the Commission are being paid. I know it would be inconvenient to give their names, and I do not ask for them, but we ought to know how many members of the Commission are being paid out-of-pocket expenses, including hotel bills and travelling expenses. If that principle is going to be applied, obviously the Public Works Loan Commission is going to be a very expensive body to keep up. The sum of £75 is being asked for now, but that may be increased to a very much larger amount in the future. Is this Vote to be regarded as the thin edge of the wedge to secure payment for the whole of the members of the Commission? If certain members are to he paid, I do not see why other members should not receive payment for their services. I hope we shall have a satisfactory statement from the Financial Secretary on these points.

Mr. CULVERWELL: This Vote is an entirely new departure, and the Financial Secretary appears to think that we ought to allow the Estimate to go through without asking any questions. I think that we are entitled to ask for more information than we have received. I agree with what has been said to the effect that this principle may lead to a very considerable expenditure in the future. I am not saying anything against the commissioners, but when they were established I understood that they were gentlemen who volunteered for this work, and that this body would not involve any charge on the Exchequer. Now we are told that within the last few months it has been found that members of this Commission cannot afford expenses which they were able to afford in the past. I would like to know whether the Vote we are discussing covers a period of 12 months, or whether it applies only to the last two or three months? If the incurring of these expenses goes on at the same rate, then the amount will be four times more next year than this year. We ought to be told what period this Estimate covers.
In view of the discussion which has just taken place, I would also like to ask whether these commissioners travel first-class or third-class on the railway. We have a large number of voluntary workers on public bodies in this country, and I might quote the Economic Committee set up by the Prime Minister as an example. I know that I should be out of order in pursuing that point, but I think I shall be in order in suggesting that if the Public Works Loan Commission, which was set up as a voluntary body at no cost to the State, are to be allowed expenses to an indefinite amount for unknown reasons, then this House is setting a precedent which may lead to a very large expenditure of public money in the future. The same principle may be followed by other bodies which, up to the present, have given their services free. I know it is usual for councillors and aldermen who attend conferences in London on behalf of their corporations to receive their expenses, and very often the municipalities are prepared to pay those expenses in the interests of efficient service.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot discuss that larger point now. We must keep to the particular subject before the Committee raised in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. CULVERWELL: It may very well be that next year, after this precedent has been established by means of this comparatively small sum for the Public Works Loan Commission, we may find other Departments just as deserving asking for payment for their services. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us, not details, not each taxi fare or hotel bill, but roughly the type of expenses covered by this Vote, whether we may expect increased demands, and whether the expenses of the whole of the commissioners are being paid or only the expenses of those who are impecunious.

Major COLFOX: Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether Lord Hunsdon is still the chairman of this body, whether he is going to share in this £10 for travelling expenses, and, if he is still chairman, whether the travelling expenses have been granted with his consent or against his advice. It seems
to me that this is introducing a new principle and marks a very definite step backwards in the public service of this country. Here we have a body of public servants who have always had the right to pride themselves on the fact that they did this service gratuitously. Now, under a Socialist Government, these public servants have been reduced to the level of—shall we say?—trade union officials or Members of Parliament or other inferior people, who are compelled to accept remuneration for their services entirely contrary to the custom of former years. What is meant by the words in the Estimate:
Additional sum required to pay travelling expenses on the usual scale"?
I thought that the whole point of this Estimate was that there was no usual scale at all, that up to now the scale had been nil, because these public servants had paid their own expenses. It seems a bit odd that these words should have been inserted in the Estimate. They require some explanation.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. GILL: I welcome this Supplementary Estimate because of the explanation given of the reason for the money being required. I certainly support the payment of reasonable travelling expenses to the members of the Public Works Loan Commission for two reasons: firstly, because I believe that under that procedure and a further expansion of it we are likely to get more disinterested members on various commissions; and, secondly, because I believe that it will widen the choice of the people who are available to take these positions. I certainly feel that the question whether an individual can or cannot afford to pay his own travelling expenses ought not to be a determining issue in any circumstances. This Commission is not a body which is a charge on the Exchequer; it is a body that is making money for the Exchequer, and the least that can be done is to pay the reasonable expenses of those who form the Commission.

Commander SOUTHBY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I beg to support the Amendment. Having
listened to this Debate throughout I have seen looming up, as other Members have seen looming up, a matter of grave public principle, namely, whether in future we are to give money for out-of-pocket expenses to those who are voluntarily giving their services to the State. That is a principle which depends on this Supplementary Estimate. It is a principle which has very nearly got through by the back door, and it would have slipped through but for the vigilance of seine hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Another point is the very serious charge which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Gill) made against the gentlemen with whom we are dealing here. It is a cowardly thing to say that if people are paid out-of-pocket expenses we shall obtain more disinterested service by having a wider range of people from whom to make a selection.

Captain CAZALET: May I have an answer to my question? When I raised it the learned Attorney-General nodded, but I do not know whether it was a positive nod or a negative nod. Perhaps it was a nod in slumber as a result of my speech. Would this expenditure, whatever it may be, come under the words in the Estimate, that the total expense "will be recovered in the following year from the Local Loans Fund?"

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is only a token Vote. The money is found already and there is no need for it to be carried over into the following year. The suggestion has been made that this is an entirely new departure for people who give voluntary service. As a matter of fact all Royal Commissions and committees have their out-of-pocket expenses paid in this way, and the only thing that is new is that it is being done, with regard to these Loan Commissioners, so far as their attending meetings in London are concerned. It is a very small point, and we have come before the Committee in order to regularise the proceedings.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I quite agree that the formal point is small, but the question of principle is not small. On the question of form I repeat the question which the Financial Secretary has unfortunately omitted to answer, namely, how long has this practice been going on? I rather gathered from what he said that it was
decided early in the financial year that this practice should be followed, and that £75 represents a considerable portion of the year. Why did not the Financial Secretary come here before? Why did he use the Civil Contingencies Fund? The Public Accounts Committee has over and over again impressed on the House hat this is a wrongful use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. How many months provision is represented by this £75?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Since the summer. What we have done is to come to the House to get sanction for the payment, and for the precise reason that the right hon. Gentleman has stated.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Really the Financial Secretary ought to be here in a white sheet. It is true that the amount is small but the principle is not small. The principle involved is that money is not to be advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund without repayment being made at the earliest possible moment. That is a perfectly well-known principle. The truth is that it was not convenient to the Government to bring forward this regularisation before. They wanted to get on with their own business in the early part of the Session, and so the financial regularisation which ought to have taken place has not in fact taken place.

8.0 p.m.

Commander SOUTHBY: I think the Committee, as well as myself, are entitled to an answer to the question which I put courteously to the Front Bench. The Financial Secretary has used the expression, "We could have got round it." There are members of the Committee who look with a good deal of suspicion on an expression of that kind coming from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The course of the Debate would seem to show there has been some attempt to get round it. Although questions have been put to the Financial Secretary, he has tried to gent round them by not answering them. How many members of this Commission have, in fact, had their travelling and incidental expenses paid, and is it or is it not understood by the Government that the payment of travelling and incidental expenses to members of this Commission, who are supposed to give their services voluntarily, is to be accepted as an established principle and
to be extended to members of other Commissions? There is no doubt it is the thin end of the wedge. These people are supposed to give their services voluntarily.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: They are given voluntarily.

Commander SOUTH BY: It appears that their services are given voluntarily, but that they are paid at the same time.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member must really not asperse responsible people in this way. There is nothing inconsistent in members giving voluntary service and being paid out-of-pocket and travelling expenses. I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member does not wish to cast aspersions on the Commission. All members of Royal Commissions and other committees who give their services voluntarily are and have been entitled to their expenses when they come specially to London on business. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his point.

Commander SOUTHBY: I have no desire to asperse for one moment the members of this Commission. I have pointed out that I think the country is very grateful for what they are doing. But when the Commission was appointed there was no word whatever that the members were going to be paid expenses. I would not have it go out that there have been any aspersions from this side. If it is necessary to pay these expenses, the Committee is quite willing to do so, but what we want to know is whether in fact it is now the principle that there shall be payment of travelling and incidental expenses to all the members of this Commission; if not to all members, to how many; and for what reason? That is a perfectly plain question, and I think we are entitled to a plain answer.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer is simple. In all ordinary circumstances in a body of this kind there is provision entitling, the members of the Commission to be paid such expenses. In this particular case, no such words were originally there, and now they are being placed there with the result that anyone who desires his travelling expenses to he paid can in future have
them paid. In fact, as I have explained, the bulk of these people are members living in London and are not put to any expense in attending its sittings, but there are members who come from the provinces, and we are now enabled to pay them.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting deeper and deeper into the mire. He apologised just now for his honesty in not concealing this Vote, but it transpires that there is a very definite departure from policy. He now informs us, after a long period of cross-questioning, that by voting in support of this item we are really voting in support of altering the terms under which the Commission was set up. That is what I understood from the last remark of the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that this token Vote is a Vote which may be justified—I am not discussing its merits, and I do not think that any Member on this side has cast any reflection on the Commissioners—hut when we are asked to alter the terms on which they were set up we are entitled to he informed of the facts and to discuss whether the Committee should alter those terms. I am supported in that opinion by the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway, who made an outrageous reflection on the Public Works Loan Commissioners. No one on this side has criticised the work that they have been doing during many years. We have always realised that they carry out a useful function and give their services voluntarily to the State, and this House has a right to thank them and not cast slurs upon them as the hon. Gentleman opposite has done. He realised even quicker than we did that there was a great change being brought about by this token Vote, for he stressed the fact that the Financial Secretary was really by this Vote improving the standing and status of the type of man who was in future to be among the Public Works Loan Commissioners. He was suggesting that until you remunerate or pay the expenses of these Commissioners you will have the same effete, ineffective members that you have now.

Mr. GILL: I suggested nothing of the kind. I suggested that you would widen the choice of the people available by meeting their reasonable travelling ex-
penses. That will not bear the interpretation the hon. Member is now trying to place on my remarks.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I do not want to misinterpret the hon. Member, but I distinctly heard him say that in future the Commissioners would be more disinterested than they are now. I do not know what he meant by that if he did not mean to cast a reflection on the Commission.

Mr. GILL: My remarks had no reference whatever to the present Commissioners.

Mr. CULVERWELL: In that case, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, like so many that come from the benches opposite, really meant nothing at all. If I have misinterpreted him, I accept his explanation, but at the same time I ask him to read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and consider whether his words can bear the interpretation he now places on them. As he has remarked, there is a very vital change being made in the status of the Commissioners, and we have the right at the outset and not at the end to be told where we are being led and what has induced this change on the part of the Government. I can only express my hope that when the Financial Secretary introduces the next Vote he will be a little more candid or clear in his explanation than he was in introducing this Vote.

Major COLFOX: It is true, of course, that a certain amount of information has been wrung from the Financial Secretary, who has been a very unwilling witness in the friendly cross-examination which has been going on from this side. But he has not even attempted to answer any of the questions which I put to him a short while ago concerning Lord Hunsdon—whether he is still chairman of this Commission, whether or not he is receiving or going to receive any of these expenses himself, and whether or not this new system has been entered into with his advice or against it? I hope very much the hon. Member will have the courtesy to answer these very reasonable questions.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Estimate referred to the travelling expenses to and from London of certain people who lived outside. I am not objecting to that, but I want to know if all or only part of this
sum is used for the expenses of those people coming to London from their home. I would be much more willing to grant him the whole of it if part of the sum were used on their work. I would like to know whether these people get help when they go off to Aberdeen to see a fishing harbour, or anything of that kind. On the other point, I would be content if he would promise to write to me. It is an important financial point. The amount of money in the Estimate is very small, but, as I understand it, we are now taking a certain amount of money out of the Loan Fund and handing it over in travelling expenses. If that is going on year after year, this Loan Fund will contract, and we shall be placed in a very difficult position. I think we ought to be informed on this point quite clearly. I take a special interest in it, because I know the Commissioners and the fund are very valuable when they can come forward and help our fishing villages in the west of England. Nothing would induce me to vote for the reduction if I thought that that reduction would take any money from our harbours in the west of England. If the Financial Secretary could answer the two points that I have put, and would oblige my hon. Friends behind me, I feel we could possibly consider withdrawing this Amendment for a reduction. They are quite fair questions, and I feel sure the Financial Secretary will do his best to answer them, as they are vitally important to us before we can decide fairly and honestly whether we should vote for the whole or only part of this Estimate.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to put one point to the Financial Secretary which he has not answered, and that is as to the length of time during which these payments have been going on? [Interruption.]

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's question again. I said that it was since the summer.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If it was since the summer, might I point out that that is one of the longest times during which such payments have ever been made out of the Civil Contingencies Fund? [Interruption.] Is there any reason why the period has been so long? It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to suggest that it is nothing
at all, but, according to the old-fashioned practice, whenever these sums have been borrowed from the Civil Contingencies Fund, they have been repaid as quickly as possible. We shall certainly divide against the hon. Gentleman on this Vote, because he has given us no reason, although I can imagine what the reason is. He has told us the length of the

period, but he has not given us any explanation as to why there has been a delay far beyond what is the usual practice in matters of this kind.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 230.

Division No. 167.]
AYES.
[8.18 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Penny, Sir George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ross, Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hendenon, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Simms, Major-General J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan, John
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Percy A.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cohen, Major J, Brunel
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Train, J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wallace, Cant. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Commander Southby and Captain Balfour.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Daggar, George
Hardie, George D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock]
Dallas, George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dalton, Hugh
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Haycock, A. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hayes, John Henry


Ammon, Charles George
Devlin, Joseph
Henderson, Arthur, junr, (Cardiff, S.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Dudgeon, Major C. R,
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Arnott, John
Dukes, C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Aske, Sir Robert
Ede, James Chuter
Herriotts, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barnes, Alfred John
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hoffman, P. C.


Barr, James
Egan, W. H.
Hollins, A.


Batey, Joseph
Elmley, Viscount
Hopkin, Daniel


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Horrabin, J. F.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Foot, Isaac
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Freeman, Peter
Isaacs, George


Benson, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jenkins, Sir William


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Birkett, W. Norman
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bromfield, William
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brothers, M.
Gillett, George M.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Glassey, A. E.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gossling, A. G.
Kedward R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Burgess, F. G.
Granville, E.
Kirk wood D.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Knight, Holford


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cameron, A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lathan, G.


Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomas E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawrence, Susan


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Leach, W.


Cove, William G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Cowan, D. M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lees, J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harbord, A.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Lindley, Fred W.
Perry, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Logan, David Gilbert
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sorensen, R.


Longden, F.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Stephen, Campbell


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Price, M. P.
Sullivan, J.


McElwee, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Sutton, J. E.


McEntee, V. L.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shattleston)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


MacLaren, Andrew
Raynes, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Richards, R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


McShane, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tout, W. J.


Marcus, M.
Ritson, J,
Townend, A. E.


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Vaughan, David


Marley, J.
Rowson, Guy
Viant, S. P.


Marshall, Fred
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Walkden, A. G.


Mathers, George
Sanders, W. S.
Walker, J.


Matters, L. W.
Sandham, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Maxton, James
Sawyer, G. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Melville, Sir James
Scott, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mills, J. E.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Milner, Major J.
Sexton, Sir James
Welsh James (Paisley)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Morley, Ralph
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, Joseph


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sherwood, G. H
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Mort, D. L.
Shield, George William
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Muggeridgs, H. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Murnin, Hugh
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shinwell, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Palin, John Henry
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
 Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Palmer, E. T.
Snell, Harry
Thurtle.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department, the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: This Vote arises from the cost of litigation concerned with de-rating appeals, which is heavier than was anticipated. The De-rating Act provided for appeals from the decision of assessment committees to Quarter Sessions. The decisions of the latter are subject to review by the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, and, ultimately, the House of Lords, and the expenditure on these appeals proved more heavy than was expected when the Estimate was taken, and on that account some additional £22,000 is required. But
against that there has been a certain saving by means of additional Appropriations-in-Aid in connection with criminal prosecutions which has amounted to something like £16,000. This necessitates us asking for this Vote for a sum of £6,000.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I see in the Appropriation-in-Aid an item of £4,500 under Letter I for the Crown Nominees Costs.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has the Estimate in his hand, and he will see what the £6,000 is for. £22,000 is for civil proceedings and there is an appropriation of £16,000. That is all that we have to deal with.

Mr. SAMUEL: I see in the original and revised Estimates sums of £32,000 and £48,000.

The CHAIRMAN: In any case, with reference to Appropriations-in-Aid, he can only ask how they are made up, but the explanation given in the details of the Estimate seems to me to give the answer the hon. Gentleman requires.

Mr. SAMUEL: I propose to ask how they have been saved. Will the Law
Officers tell me how they have saved that £16,000. Also, perhaps, they will tell us in detail what makes up the £22,000. Is it the fees of the Law Officers? I do not want to touch on delicate ground, but how is the amount arrived at which makes the additional sum required under letter E?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The £22,000 represents costs for solicitors' fees, counsels' fees, etc., in respect of de-rating matters. I cannot split the sum up, but the position is simply that the amount exceeds what it was estimated would be incurred by this sum of £22,000. So far as the Appropriations-in-Aid are concerned, that simply results in this way. When the Crown is successful in litigation, it is entitled to recover from the unsuccessful litigants costs in the ordinary way, and the costs which have been recovered exceed the estimate of the costs that were expected to be recovered by £16,000. On the one hand, we are down by £22,000, and on the other we are up by £16,000.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: Are the costs recovered mostly in de-rating cases?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Largely. First of all £2,000 was paid in connection with some litigation with the London and North Eastern Railway Company and £1,200 in respect of another matter.

Mr. BATEY: Can the Financial Secretary tell us in connection with the De-rating Act whether the expenditure was worth while?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if the hon. Member were allowed to ask the question, and I was perhaps careless enough to allow it to be answered, it would open up a wide discussion. It does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. BATEY: There is another point I should like to raise, seeing that it is a legal Estimate. I should like to know whether I might be allowed to raise the question of working men magistrates.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member has not studied the Supplementary Estimate. If he had, he would not have raised such a question.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: We are obliged to the Attorney-General for telling us about the additional sum required in
respect of de-rating matters. Seeing that the sum is £22,000–66 per cent. of the estimated figure—I think we should have a more detailed account of how it is arrived at.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In the English Courts unfortunately we do not follow the Scottish practice. In Scotland you merely go before the assessment committee, there is one appeal to the Land Valuation Court, and that ends the matter. In the Courts of England you go, first of all, before the assessment committee, then to Quarter Sessions, then to the Divisional Court, then to the Court of Appeal, and finally to the Rouse of Lords. Owing to the fact that this was a new Act, there has been the most remarkable difference of opinion between the Courts of Scotland and those of England, and between all the Courts in England. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps like to know the number of appeals that have been lodged with Quarter Sessions. It is 1,849, of which 1,593 were as to whether the hereditaments in question were or were not entitled to de-rating, and 256 were on the question of value only. They all concerned collieries, with regard to which very difficult questions arose. The majority of the 1,593 appeals were brought by the Revenue Officer to Quarter Sessions. The cases that have now been disposed of number 1,081; 641 have been decided in favour of the Revenue Officer, and 400 against him, so that we have a very considerable balance there.
We take the cases, and we select, as far as we can to bring to the Courts test cases—as, of course, we could not bring anything like that number—representative of the variety of cases up and down the country. The Divisional Courts took a view which was in our favour on the whole. We won 32 cases and lost 25, and we have awaiting hearing somewhere about 40 to 50 cases. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the decision of the Divisional Courts, taking a different view in the large majority of cases. In the Court of Appeal we won two and lost 15 cases. Those 15 cases have been almost all cases in which the Court of Appeal have taken a different view from the Judges of the Divisional Court who heard the cases. We have appealed to the Rouse of Lords, and only two cases have been disposed of—the first two main cases—and they
have been lost. But eight cases have been heard and are now awaiting decision. Of course, it would be disrespectful of me to say what I think the result is going to be, but perhaps, without any disrespect, I may say that from the indications I had during the course of the arguments, I am very hopeful their Lordships will take a view, in a considerable number of cases, which is favourable to our line and that they are going to reverse the Court of Appeal. Of course, I cannot say more than that, as hon. Members will realise.

Mr. ALBERY: Taking the cases the Attorney-General has brought altogether, and the cases which have been decided against him in the first Court and subsequently in the second, can he give us the figures of the present results?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I gave the figures in the Divisional Courts—32 cases won, 25 cases lost and 50 cases, I think, awaiting hearing. As far as the Court of Appeal is concerned, two cases were won and 15 cases lost. As far as the House of Lords are concerned, the two cases which have been heard, and in which judgment has been given, were lost. There are eight cases now awaiting judgment, and it was with regard to those cases that my remarks of great hopes were expressed. That, I think, is the correct position.

Sir G. PENNY: The Committee, I think, are very much indebted to the learned Attorney-General for the very full statement he has made to us. In regard to the cases where he said the Crown has, in the majority of cases, been successful in the appeals which have been made, I should like to know whether the Law Officers of the Crown presented those cases personally before the court, and, if so, can he tell us the fees which these representatives entailed to the country and whether they were included in the additional sum required?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot state particular fees. They have not been fixed as yet, but the whole thing is included in the £22,000. In view of the importance of these cases—they almost all govern a large block of cases—the hon. Member will see that I felt it necessary myself to present them.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am not a lawyer, and, therefore, I should be hopelessly outclassed in attempting to debate a question like this with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am sure he will be kind to me and answer a question which I wish to put for the purpose of obtaining information. I want to know who is responsible for the final decision as to whether a case is to be fought or not, and who is responsible for the final decision as to whether a case is to be taken to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman the final say in the matter? If he has, if I may say so without any disrespect, I do not think that he has shown the consideration which one might hope the Law Officers of the Crown might have displayed.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Of course, the sole responsibility rests upon me, but in practice the hon. and gallant Member will realise that I am advised. I do not shelter behind anybody else. The tasks of this sort which I have to do are so multifarious that it is hardly possible for me to bring my mind to bear upon any particular case. In practice, what would happen would be, that the Solicitor to the Treasury or the very experienced Junior Treasury Counsel would say, "We have such and such a case, and I think that it ought to go up." If they are in doubt with regard to a particular case they come to me. Where they told me that it was clear I should not think of going into the facts. I should accept their opinion. I think that it is desirable to have decisions in cases of complexity and difficulty where the Scottish courts differ from the English courts. It was very undesirable that we should have derating extended to places in Scotland. or vice versa, and not to places in England under the same Act. Therefore, wherever I found a case of importance where there was a difference between the English courts and the Scottish courts, I thought it right to take the case up.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for the kind way in which he has answered my question.

Mr. TURTON: I would remind the Committee that when the Supplementary
Estimate was brought in last year, the amount was £12,000. This year the extra expenditure involved is £22,000, and if we have a Socialist Government next year it will be £32,000 at that rate of progression. The point to which I really want to draw the attention of the learned Attorney-General is the way in which his Department have conducted the appeals under the Rating and Valuation Act. In the present economic crisis we ought to practise the greatest economy possible, and for that reason these appeals ought to be carried out in an economic manner. I am not talking about the appeals in town. The Attorney-General, quite rightly, takes those cases himself. But in regard to appeals in the country, a junior counsel is sent from London to argue the cases. Therefore, the country will have to pay not only for his very great skill in arguing the cases, but a considerable cost in railway fares and also incidental costs which are entailed owing to the etiquette of the legal profession.
If the learned Attorney-General will bear with me, I will put forward a hypothetical appeal case, say, at Newcastle. If there is a de-rating case at Newcastle the Attorney-General will send up revenue counsel from London, and the cost in railway fares alone will be £5. If the case is at a closed session, as they all are, he will have to pay, in addition, a special fee to that revenue counsel. If that counsel, as is nearly always the case, is not a member of that circuit, the Attorney-General is obliged to employ another junior counsel to assist in the case. I speak with diffidence, because I am a member of the same profession. The difficulty with me is to reconcile my duty to my profession and my duty to my constituents as regards economy.
I am, however, certain that we could have conducted these appeals in a more economical manner. At Newcastle there is a local Bar, and while I would not in any way underrate the abilities of the admirable young counsel sent by the Attorney-General to Newcastle, I would point out that there are in Newcastle as competent men to argue the case as those sent up from London at such expense. [Interruption.] I believe the hon. Member who interrupted me does
not come from Newcastle, but from Durham, which has not a local Bar. I suggest to the Attorney-General that from now, in face of the grave economic crisis, when any further de-rating appeals are brought forward they should be conducted either by barristers practising upon the circuit or in the most economical manner by members of the local Bar in the various industrial towns where the cases are heard.
I come to the question of appeals from decisions of the Courts of Quarter Sessions. Last year we had a discussion upon this point. The Attorney-General has given us a recital of the appeals and the result of the appeals. When I heard his recital I visualised how in one part of the battle he had won and in another part his enemies, the derating hereditaments, had gained a minor advantage. All the way through I asked myself who, really, had been wounded. If the Attorney-General won, then the poor industry concerned, the coal industry or the de-rated textile industry, had to pay the costs. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke with great joy of the sum of £16,000 Appropriation-in-Aid which had been recovered from the would-be de-rated industries that could not be de-rated. When the Attorney-General lost, then the taxpayer had to pay.
We are not getting great advantage by having these costly and numerous appeals from the Courts of Quarter Session right up to the House of Lords. Last year a point was made that these cases need not be taken up to the Appeal Court. The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that it was quite unnecessary to employ revenue counsel in these cases, or to take them up to the Appeal Court. He said that it was merely a question of fact. The Attorney-General is an acknowledged authority on the splitting of questions of fact from questions of law. We have had considerable experience upstairs in another committee of his great skill in splitting the hair that lies between a question of fact and a question of law. He replied last year that it was impossible to say in these cases that they were purely questions of fact, but I would point out that in the two cases that the House of Lords have decided they decided that it was purely a question of fact for the court of first instance to determine.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is not right. In the last eight cases they have said specifically that it is not a question of fact. Of course, the hon. Member could not know that, but he can take it from me that they expressed their dissent from the view expressed by one of the Judges in the Court of Appeal that it was a question of fact.

Mr. TURTON: I accept that statement, because I could not possibly know what has happened in the eight cases. I have no intention of delving into the minds of House of Lords, but I do hope that we shall not have so many of these de-rating cases. It is a very large sum to ask the House to vote £22,000. That is the sum which has been spent in extra law charges under this one Act. I agree that it is an important Act and that we should select a few cases in order that certain points may be determined, but I do not agree with the Attorney-General that we have selected as few as we might have done. Take the garage cases. He selected three cases, all of which appeared to bear on the one point as to whether the garage was or was not an industrial hereditament. We could have had one case to decide that question and could have spared the expenditure of public money and also the expenditure of the private money of the owners of these small industrial hereditaments. The Attorney-General has told us that there have been 1,081 appeals on this one question, and we are still throwing our money away and continuing these appeals through the various courts up to the House of Lords. I do ask the Attorney-General that during the coming year he should try to keep down the appeals under the Rating and Valuation Act.

Mr. HARDIE: In listening to the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat one would think that the present Government are responsible for the Act under which these appeals have been taken. He seems to forget that all the difficulties of which he has been speaking and all this stupid expenditure is due to the fact that a Conservative Government passed a De-rating Act. I am surprised that anyone with any knowledge of law should have spoken as the hon. Member did on that point. Much is said about economy by hon. Members opposite, but in their eagerness they forget the cause of the expenditure. The hon. Member pointed
out that last year we had £12,000 to pay and that this year the amount is £22,000. All this expenditure has been caused by points of stupidity raised by the law called the De-rating Act. That Act could not be put upon the Statute Book without containing all this stupidity on what are said to be questions of law. We were told that that Act would wipe out unemployment and do ever so much for industry, but the only industry that is improving under it is the law industry, if that can be called an industry. There has been an expenditure of £22,000 this year in law charges under the Act, and there are cases pending. When these cases are finished we are only at the beginning in regard to these so-called points of law. In the Scottish courts and in the English courts cases are going on. There is hair splitting as to the difference between law and fact. Gentlemen are receiving fees for pointing out where the hair is, but it is not good for the business of this country and it is useless expenditure. Can the Attorney-General tell us why the Estimate which was £12,000 last year is £22,000 this year, and the amount in which we are likely to be mulcted before we have finished?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As we have to take these cases to the House of Lords in order to get definite principles established we have to pay through the nose, but these principles of law have to be dealt with and there is no finality until you get that tribunal because there is a difference between England and Scotland. The trouble with regard to the garage cases was that the garage proprietors declined to agree a test case, and consequently we had to go three times instead of once.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) seems to think that this Estimate indicates a lack of prevision in the authors of the De-rating Act. Surely he is not ignorant of the fact that he and his friends declared that the De-rating Act would be totally unworkable, but we find that it has come into operation with the comparatively small difference indicated in the Estimate of the Law Officers of the Crown. Everyone knows that it has worked successfully, and, indeed, so successfully that the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the Coal Mines Act said that
the whole of the money he proposed to give in relief to the coal industry was derived from the Tory De-rating Act.

Mr. BATEY: May I be allowed to come in now?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of making his point. I am quoting the remarks of his own Minister at the Board of Trade. If the hon. Member proposes to disown his own Minister it is not a new thing, so far as a Socialist Government is concerned; indeed, it is the normal procedure. All the facts show that the De-rating Act is being administered with a minimum of trouble.

Mr. HARDIE: How is it that under the De-rating Act the arrangements for the allocation of counsel in Lanarkshire is still unsettled?

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into these details of the administration of the De-rating Act on this Estimate.

Major ELLIOT: The Attorney-General may have called an unnecessary number of cases; I am not concerned with that. He is the responsible Law Officer and must be the best judge in these matters, and also as to the way of approaching finality. The House of Lords has given a series of rulings which it has been found possible to apply generally to the country. I am pointing out that the hon. Member for Springburn and his friends vehemently disclaimed against the whole ideas upon which the Act was based and said that they would immediately repeal it when they came into office.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the merits of the De-rating Act now.

9.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I do not wish to go into the merits of the Act, but as this expenditure arises out of it it follows that if it had been repealed none of this expenditure would have arisen. Hon. Members opposite did not repeal the De-rating Act because they thought it was a useful Measure and because they were frightened. The fact of the matter is that they are able to work the Act and derive great benefit from it. They themselves are the chief defenders of the Measure—

The CHAIRMAN: The only question raised by hon. Members on the Government side of the House was that as a result of this Act this expenditure has occurred and that statement does not entitle the hon. and gallant Member to go into the merits of the De-rating Act.

Major ELLIOT: The speech of the hon. Member for Springburn was entirely devoted to a denigration of the De-rating Act, and I was only replying to him. For myself, I am in accord with the Attorney-General. I do not think this is an excessive Estimate having in mind the enormous sums affected. The principles of the Act are being adjudicated upon, the Measure is being brought into action, and I am heartily in accord with the Attorney-General in asking for this Estimate and I shall be prepared to support him in the Division Lobby.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I imagine that I should be out of order if I raised those points which I desire to raise upon this Vote. There is the question of the allocation of counsel. Part of this £22,000 is to be paid to counsel employed in various parts of the country. I do not wish to challenge now the present method of allocating counsel, but I am not sure how far the question of patronage enters into the employment of counsel. I feel sure that patronage does exist, that friendship does exist and does, apart from capacity and other considerations, enter into the make up of these Estimates. If I went into the broad question I should probably be out of order, but there is no doubt non counsel has been employed when local counsel could have been secured in the area where the case arose instead of sending up a man to conduct the case. Some big principle might involve the employment of a fashionable lawyer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] The high-priced lawyer—if we were discussing football it would be the Hughie Gallachers of the profession, the high priced players. I think the State should employ local men when no great principle is involved. They could be engaged at less expense. I hope on a future occasion to raise the general question of the employment of counsel and the growing system of patronage in connection with this work.
As regards the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) as to the smooth working of the Derating Act, may I suggest that it has worked so smoothly that there are now 2,500,000 unemployed as against 1,000,000 before it came into operation. He said that we had not repealed that Act, but neither did his party repeal the Wheatley Act, so I think that we are quits in that respect. I view with apprehension the increase in expenditure under this head. I think much of it might have been avoided by employment of local counsel, and I hope that the system of appointing, not only counsel but judges and semi-judges throughout the country will be faced by the House of Commons and thrashed out on some future occasion.

Mr. ALBERY: The detailed figures given by the Attorney-General seem to a layman to disclose a rather serious state of affairs as regards public litigation. I gather that of the cases appealed, some 15 went against the Department and only two were in favour of the Department. Taking the cases brought in the first court in which there were appeals against the Department it would appear that the Department were losers in about eight and winners in about seven. In ordinary circumstances that would be a very alarming state of things. The Attorney-General however explained that he had to bring a great number of these cases in order to settle certain questions of law. I was therefore disappointed at his reply to the question addressed to him just now by an hon. Member opposite as to whether there was any likelihood of a reduction in the number of these cases in the future. The Attorney-General seemed to be unable to give a satisfactory reply but, surely, since so many cases have been brought to determine points of law, we should be able to look for a substantial reduction in the future.

Mr. DIXEY: It seems very serious that this extra sum should be required under this head, inasmuch as everybody who has had anything to do with Government litigation knows that the costs in these cases do not follow the ordinary course of practice, and that in many cases of appeals against the Government costs are given to the Government even though
the appellant is successful. It is also extraordinary that this additional Estimate should be required having regard to the fact that so much of this litigation is only undertaken after the expert opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown have been taken upon it. I do not know why, at this juncture, we should be called upon to vote such a large additional sum in this respect. I had not the privilege of hearing the Attorney-General's speech but I hope I may be allowed to put forward certain points. Speaking for the lower branch of the legal profession it seems to us that a large number of appeal cases are carried forward by the Government without any proper reason or justification for the expense incurred.
We are told that in a large number of these cases questions of principle are involved. I do not know what the principle involved may be in any particular case, but, no doubt, the Treasury has the thick end of the stick and a number of unfortunate people who are concerned in this litigation are compelled to consider whether or not they can afford to fight the Treasury, even in cases where they are sure of their facts. They know that the Treasury have the power of money behind them, and I suggest that a number of these cases are taken to the Appeal Court without real justification in law. I am not suggesting that this remark applies only to the Department as run by the Attorney-General. I suggest that this procedure has been going on for a number of years, and that in many cases the humble appellant is compelled to make a settlement because he knows that the full force of the Treasury is against him. I heard with great interest the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who made a very proper complaint in regard to the employment of counsel.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that the hon. Member was not here earlier in this discussion, otherwise he would know that we are having the same arguments repeated over and over again. There is a rule against repetition, and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was not the first to raise that point. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) cannot go into it again.

Mr. DIXEY: I should be the last to disagree with a Ruling from the Chair,
but when this Committee is called upon to vote such a large additional sum for law costs, I think I am entitled to raise the question of the emoluments of counsel. This sum includes the fees paid to counsel.

The CHAIRMAN: I know it does, but the point which the hon. Member is raising has already been raised several times, and there is a rule against the repetition either of one's own arguments, or of other people's arguments in these discussions.

Mr. DIXEY: I am not putting this point in any factious way, but because I think it a relevant point. I am submitting that this Estimate is increased far more than is necessary because very expensive counsel are employed.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the very point to which I am objecting. The hon. Member is repeating an argument which has already been used, and that is contrary to the rule.

Mr. DIXEY: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Robert, and I conclude by saying that at a time of great financial crisis, when even comparatively small sums might well be appropriated to dealing with some of the very important unemployment problems confronting us, the Treasury ought to exercise the utmost care over expenditure on legal costs. I wish for some assurance from the Attorney-General that his department is scrutinising every penny of such expenditure.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I had the advantage of hearing the Attorney-General's opening speech, and I hope I shall not break the rule against repetition. The Attorney-General gave certain figures as to the cases in which he had been successful, and those in which he had been unsuccessful, and, according to my recollection, he said he had won 39 and lost 40. That is not the sort of record which will get him into a cup final. The point which I wish to raise is as regards the costs of the unfortunate private individual who is an unsuccessful litigant in these cases.

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise here. We are concerned in this Supplementary Estimate with the legal costs of the Government.

Sir G. PENNY: If it cost the individual a certain sum, would the Government not have to meet less in regard to costs?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I will go to a, point which I hope will be in order. The litigant normally has no option against the Attorney-General if he takes him to the House of Lords. In many instances, the case is settled in the Court of first instance and the matter goes no further, but in other instances the litigant has no option when the case is taken to the House of Lords for the benefit of the nation. I want to know how in these cases the Crown deals with the private individual in the matter of costs, because great unfairness may result if the unfortunate private individual is taken to the House of Lords and left to bear the burden of the costs.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The cases which I take are all test cases, and I do not think that any de-rating case has gone to the House of Lords unless there has been a trade association on the other side. It frequently happens that the Crown are successful and consent to pay the costs on the other side, but such a question has not arisen in de-rating cases.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: It is very awkward when Members raise issues of this kind involving litigation and find that the Treasury holds one view and the Member holds another. He is at a tremendous disadvantage, as I was last Session in the matter of the taxation of unemployment grants. I was told that I was wrong and in the end a small dock company had to take it to the Court of Appeal, and it was found that the private Member was right and the Treasury was wrong. A small body of taxpayers are at a great disadvantage with the Crown, especially when a test case is decided as it has been in these de-rating questions, and the man who has comparatively limited resources is called upon to pay the costs of settling a case which affects a large number of other people, who are thereby released from any obligation to go forward with their case. That is constantly arising, and very often Members of this House have to attack the Treasury one way and another, and in the end cases cannot go to the final court because those whom Members are trying to represent have not the right
of appeal, and have to bow to departmental Rulings, so that they are hopelessly handicapped.

CLASS VII.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The additional amount which is being asked for under sub-head C is £70,000, and it arises from two causes. In the first place, the poundage of the local authorities has increased more than was anticipated when the Estimate was brought up. The Committee will appreciate that the Estimate has to be drawn up at the beginning of the year, and the local authorities fix their poundage afterwards, so that it is impossible for those preparing the Estimates to arrive with certainty at the amount of the rates. In the Metropolitan boroughs alone that has involved an additional expenditure on rates of about £25,000. There has also been an additional poundage in some of the provincial local authorities, counterbalanced by reductions in others, and the total additional expenditure on account of alterations in poundage is, roughly speaking, £22,000. That includes both the Metropolitan and the provincial local authorities.
The second item is due to the alteration in valuations. Crown property is not valued in the same way as private property. The Crown valuation is based on the private property valuation, and we endeavour to pay a reasonable sum comparable to what is paid by the private person. Owing to the revaluation in 1925, which took some time to carry through, there was a revision of the value of Government property. That revision could not be undertaken until after the valuation of private property was, in many cases, complete, and it was
decided that when the revision of the amount of valuation of Government property took place, it should go back to the same date that applied to private property. In most cases, that was from the 1st April, 1929, but in 10 county boroughs it went back to the 1st April, 1928, so that we had to meet not merely the increased charge owing to the increased valuation during the current year, but to pay arrears going back in some cases one year, and in some cases two years. These arrears and the extra on the current year amount altogether to £78,000, but it was already estimated that some increase would be required, and the additional increase over what was estimated on this account amounts to about £48,000. That amount arising out of the increased valuation, together with the £22,000 arising out of the increased poundage, gives us the figure of £70,000, for which we are obliged to come to the Committee.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Perhaps on this Estimate I may make use of an expression of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made use on two occasions, namely, "Turn about and wheel about." We see from the accounts that last year there was an Estimate of £1,711,825, as against an Estimate of £1,754,000. They turned about and took that amount off the Estimate based on the figures when Ii held the hon. Gentleman's office. They took off £42,000 and have now wheeled about again and added £70,000. It is not a very difficult thing to estimate.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is quite impossible to estimate.

Mr. SAMUEL: I take exception to that view with all due deference. In dealing with the estimated rates on Crown property, the figures are settled by the Treasury themselves. The Crown makes the estimate on the figures in front of it, and does not wait for the local assessors. The Crown takes the existing figures and makes its own estimate of what it ought to pay in lieu of rates. The Financial Secretary says it is impossible to know what it will be, but I do not see how he can defend that statement. It has the figures in front of it, and the Crown makes its own estimate. We are asked to put back an additional sum of £70,000 after the Treasury had removed £42,000 previously. They turn
round and wheel about. Why they show such vacillation, I do not know. Has this difference first of £42,000 taken off and £70,000 put on anything to do with the contribution of Northern Ireland? I know Northern Ireland does make some contribution. There are the reserved services, and a certain amount has to be recovered from Northern Ireland. It is very unsatisfactory to find that the figures changed about. I cannot see how it is impossible to find out what the amount should be when the, Treasury themselves, to my certain knowledge, are the authorities who fix the figure. We ought to hear a good deal more from the Financial Secretary as to the reason for this.

Captain BOURNE: This is rather an unsatisfactory form of Supplementary Estimate. For some reason or another, the Government's Estimate for the current year was £42,000 below the estimate of the year before. I quite agree that it is difficult to foresee at the time the Estimates are made whether in certain parts of the country there will be a rise in the actual poundage on the part of the local authority. The Estimate is made somewhere in November and December, and finally settled in February. The hon. Gentleman has said that only £22,000 of the Estimate is accounted for by a rise in the rate, and the rest is on account of revaluation of Government property which he says is due to the valuaion lists under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. The valuation list under that Act had to be made up either by 1st April, 1929, or 1st April, 1929. That is now nearly two years ago. I quite agree that these matters are settled by negotiation between the Treasury and the local authority, but surely the negotiations must have been contemplated at the time the last Estimates were made up? The rise in the assessment had to take place by that date, and surely that information must have been available to the Treasury at least a year ago? If that was the case, there did not seem reason for an arbitrary decrease in the Estimate by £42,000 at a, time when, in view of the reassessment, we all know in various parts of the country that would result in a rise.
Surely the Treasury might have had the imagination to foresee that, and they must have had the information by this
time last year giving an indication of a certain rise in the poundage rates I cannot see what justification there is for cutting the Estimate by £42,000 and then coming for a Supplementary Estimate afterwards. It has been said by more than one high financial authority that Supplementary Estimates are a very bad form of finance. They are justified on two suppositions only, namely, a new service or an unforeseen expenditure arising that could not possibly have been foreseen at the time of the original Estimate. I agree that the sum could not have been accurately foreseen, but as regards the possibility that owing to our own Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, in certain localities the amount that they might be reasonably asked to contribute is a thing they might reasonably have foreseen, they should have made provision for it in the original Estimate.

Captain GUNSTON: I should like to ask a few questions about the Estimate. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Royal Palaces. Do the House of Lords and the House of Commons come under the Royal Palaces, because the Estimates allow for a slight increase in the rates of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I should have thought that they would have known whether there was likely to be an increase in rates for these two buildings. A small increase is shown on the original Estimate, and I should like to ask if it has worked fairly well? Another interesting item about which we are entitled to ask is that of rents. In the original Estimate for 1929 the amount was £4,375, and in the Estimate for 1930 it is £1,760, which is a very considerable saving. It seemed to us at the time that the saving was rather over-estimated, and I am rather inclined to think, perhaps either through a mistake in poundage or because they did not quite realise what the rateable value would be, they have gone rather wrong under that head. Another interesting thing is the Estimate in regard to London. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman expected to save £50 on the Home Office and to pay another £1,000 on the Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. Did the Estimate work out correctly to that amount? Then he expected to have a small saving on the Registrar-General's Office.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing now with the original Estimate. He has been long enough in this House to know that on this occasion we are dealing with Supplementary Estimates, and that he must confine himself to the Supplementary Estimate. It is not in order to go over all the details of the original Estimate, though he may ask for explanations.

Captain CUNSTON: As we have an increase in the Estimate in respect of rates, surely I am entitled to ask where the increase is to be found under the heads of the original Vote?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not object to that, but the hon. and gallant Member is going through all these separate items on the assumption that one particular item is responsible for the increase.

Captain GUNSTON: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but while I have been a Member of the House I have paid a great deal of attention to the question of rates and took a great interest in the Rating and Valuation Bill, and I was anxious to know how the estimates of the Department had worked out. However, I will not pursue that subject, and I will go on to ask the Financial Secretary a question in regard to the royal parks. I see that the right hon. Gentleman who has the chief responsibility for looking after the pelicans is seated near him, and perhaps we may have a little information as to whether the rates on the royal parks have gone up owing to the activities of the right hon. Gentleman in making them more alluring to the public.

Mr. CULVERWELL: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, £22,000 of this money is in respect of increased poundage and £48,000 in respect of increased valuation. With these additions the rates now amount to more than they did in 1930, although with the De-rating Act in operation we might have expected a lower charge for rates. It is an alarming sign of the times and of the growth of municipal expenditure that instead of the charge for rates being reduced by the De-rating Act the expenditure is some £25,000 more. I should be out of order, however, in dwelling on that point, and I will pass to another question to which I attach some importance. I
notice that among the Government buildings for which rates have to be paid are the Stationery and Printing Office buildings. How much of the increased expenditure is the result of increased valuation following the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925? I ask that because the Stationery and Printing Office is a trading Department of the Government. When that Act was enforced a certain municipal corporation's electricity department found its valuation trebled as the result of reassessment, and then, instead of being able to contribute some £16,000 in relief of the rates of the city and boast, as hon. Members opposite would, of what a wonderful success they had made of their electricity undertaking, they found its operations involved them in a loss—because of the fair and proper valuation. I always believe that trading departments, whether they belong to a local authority or to the Government, should be made to stand upon their own legs, because when a trading department is being subsidised to a certain extent by the Government it is easy for hon. Members opposite to point out what a wonderful success it is.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very far away from the Estimate.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I quoted that instance to show the necessity of finding out whether a correct valuation had been placed on these buildings. I wish to know how much of this £48,000 which is attributable to increased valuation relates o the offices and buildings of the Stationery and Printing Department, because I have not the least doubt that hon. Members opposite take a delight in pointing to that undertaking as an example of collective enterprise. It is far more important, therefore, to know that this trading Department has every expense attributed to it which it should justly bear than to know the facts about Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum and our picture galleries and the various Government offices in Whitehall. If it is to be assumed that there has been an increase owing to a previous under valuation of the Stationery and Printing Department, then the expenses of that Department will present a very different picture in the future. I hope, for the sake of the Department, that the increase
attributable to any increased valuation in respect of it will not be so great as, perhaps, I had anticipated.

Mr. DIXEY: Knowing the close relations which exists between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, one feels sure that the Financial Secretary will have realised that he has a peculiar responsibility to see that every penny of this money is property spent. I pay him the credit of acknowledging his loyalty and the great service he has rendered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the economic campaign which is being waged inside the party. Nevertheless, I have a question to ask as to how these assessments are arrived at. As I understand it, they are more or less settled between the rating authority for the area in which the premises are situated and the Treasury, and I take it that they are arrived at in all cases by agreement. If I am correct in that, I would like to know what proportion of this £70,000 is expended on paying the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department. Are any fees payable for valuation expenses, or are there no salaries outside the ordinary departmental salaries? Is this the best we can expect, in spite of the De-rating Bill? Are we to understand that this increased expenditure must be expected from year to year, or have we reached the maximum in rating values?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I should like to ask if any of this £70,000 is to be spent in Northern Ireland. This Vote is required to cover:
Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers.
I should like to know whether any of that sum is to be used for Northern Ireland. I do not quite understand what is meant by the words "occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers." Does that mean, as regards the embassies in England, that a contribution is given in lieu of rates on those buildings. In other words, does the English Government give a contribution to the local authorities in those cases.

Mr. ALBERY: The £22,000 is required to meet the rise in the poundage of rates and the £48,000 is for the increased
valuations. I want to know what relation there is between these two amounts and the actual totals of the additional poundage on rates and the increased valuation, on the basis of the original Estimates.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think I can answer all the points which have been put to me very shortly. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has asked me if any amount of the £70,000 is to be used in Northern Ireland, and the answer to that question is "No." With regard to the question put to me about the rating of the Stationery Office, the answer is that there is no extra money asked for that purpose in this Supplementary Vote. I would also like to point out on the question of salaries that they do not come under Sub-head (C), but under Sub-head (A). With reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), in regard to the rise in the poundage of rates, I understand that the Committee has generally accepted my explanation. With regard to the other point of the charge on valuation raised by him, this matter was put very strongly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who said that nothing of the sort had happened in his time. But as I explained in my opening remarks, this increase has been brought about by the Re-valuation Act of 1925. We have not now the wise and guiding hand of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham at the Treasury, and since his departure, the time has come when the valuations have to be made. The Treasury foresaw that there would be an increase in this respect and they put down a sum of £30,000 to meet it. Instead of this, the sum has amounted to £78,000. I have already explained that this sum does not relate to a single year. After all, £48,000 is a serious item, but it represents an expenditure over several years, and is not a large percentage of the total Vote. In view of the uncertainty with which these valuations often work out, I do not think that any serious charge can be made against those who have made the Estimate. It is for more than one year, and I do not think the total shows that there has has been any carelessness on the part of the valuation department.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £48,000.
I have taken great interest in the Financial Secretary's reply upon the amounts and I do not like what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has called the Jim Crow policy of jumping about from figure to figure, first a reduction in the original Estimate and now an addition. I agree that the poundage explanation given about the increase of £22,000 is a good reason, but as regards the £48,000 I do not agree that it has been sufficiently justified, and, for that reason, I move a reduction of the Vote.

Mr. ALBERY: I am sorry to have to trespass on the Committee's time again. When the Financial Secretary got up to reply just now he assured the Committee that he could easily answer all the questions put to him, and he did answer with great ease and great courtesy for the most part, but he forgot to answer my question as to the relationship between the two amounts of this Supplementary Estimate and the actual total increase which has taken place under these two heads.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry that I did not answer the hon. Member, but I confess that it was difficult for me to understand his difficulty. Clearly, when one is making rates everything depends on two facts—first of all upon the valuation on which the rate is made, and, secondly, upon the rate in the pound which one has to pay. I have explained that owing to the change in the rate in the pound which one has to pay £22,000 additional is required, and that owing to the change in the valuation £48,000 is required. Added together, those figures make £70,000.

Mr. ALBERY: The Financial Secretary has still not seized my point. I understand that the £22,000 is on account of extra poundage and that £48,000 is on account of extra valuation. There was an original Estimate, and presumably it allowed for some increase or no increase—I am not clear which. Was some increase in poundage allowed for? As regards valuation, I am not clear whether there was some increase or no increase allowed for. Can the Financial Secretary give us some idea of what was the total extra charge in poundage owing
to increased rates, and what was the total extra charge on valuation owing to increased valuation?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have to explain the difference between the revised Estimate and the original Estimate. All that I am concerned about is to show why, having secured that Vote for the original Estimate, I now have to come to the Committee and ask for a revised Estimate. So far as poundage is concerned you have to take the country as a whole. In some cases poundages are higher, and in some cases they are lower. All that I can be called upon to say is that, taking the poundage as a whole throughout the country, the reason why we have to ask for £22,000 more is the change or difference in poundage between what was anticipated and what it is to-day. With regard to the alteration in valuation, I have explained that £30,000 was allowed for, but owing to re-valuation the amount is larger than was anticipated; it is £78,000 instead of £30,000, and that means an additional £48,000.

Mr. ALBERY: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to answer. What I am trying to ascertain is what the Treasury anticipated. To what extent was there any real need for having this Supplementary Estimate?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I think I can answer the question of my hon. Friend. There has been an increase in this poundage because the rates have gone up, and the rates have gone up because we have a Socialist Government.

Mr. REMER: Everyone will agree that the Financial Secretary has failed to make the Estimates clear in any way. A few nights ago I said that there was a lack of scrutiny in all these Estimates. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has come here with an Estimate which he has seen for the first time, and that he has no real knowledge of it at all. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Mint, and said that there had been a saving of the rates paid in that case because it was a productive industry. Surely, the proper way to have presented the Estimate would have been to have shown the extra rates where more have been paid, and under the various subheads to show the savings where there have been savings. Then we could have
understood quite clearly where the extra expenditure or savings were. In the case of the Royal Mint, what is the saving?

Mr. DIXEY: I cannot think it is a pleasurable sensation for the hon. Gentleman to hear very serious allegations made against him for coming to the Committee with an improperly prepared Supplementary Estimate. If I know anything of his character and general esteem in this House, he will see there is reason for our complaints and do his best to remedy them. Very serious charges have been made that he does not quite appreciate the importance of his own Estimate. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this Estimate and represent it in the proper form, so that hon. Members on this side of the Committee and on the other side—[Interruption]. In the whole of these Supplementary Estimates we have not had one speech from the other side of the Committee. Yes, just one. We are voting large sums of money on improperly prepared Estimates, and, quite frankly, as far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman does not understand portions of his own Estimates. Members opposite are ignorant—

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to the Estimates.

Mr. DIXEY: I am only expressing natural indignation.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman not displaying his own ignorance by asking the questions that he is asking?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Is there no way in which hon. Members opposite can be prevented from submitting bogus points of Order?

Mr. DIXEY: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman finishing his speech?

Mr. DIXEY: No, I am not. I am putting a very definite and pertinent point to the hon. Gentleman, with no bitterness and with proper respect to
yourself and the Committee. A very critical Estimate such as this, embracing large expenditure, comes before the Committee and very vital information is missing. I would strongly press the hon. Gentleman, whatever may be the position of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at this stage for his own benefit and the benefit of his Government to withdraw the Estimate and re-introduce it with the proper information.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: May I ask your advice on this point, Sir Robert? As there is such a discrepancy of opinion about the righteousness and propriety of this Estimate, would it be in order if I were to propose to report Progress, so that the Estimate might be withdrawn and revised?

The CHAIRMAN: It would be in order, but it is not necessary for the Chairman to accept it.

Mr. CULVERWELL: May we assume from the fact that no Supplementary Estimate is brought in in the case of Scotland or Northern Ireland—

The CHAIRMAN: That is the fault of hon. Members not being in the Committee and not paying attention to the Estimate. If the hon. Member will look at the Estimate, he will find that neither Ireland, Scotland nor other parts of the original Estimate is included. It is confined to "C."

Mr. CULVERWELL: With great respect that is what I said.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman would look at the Estimate he would know that it is not included.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I was asking why, if a correct Estimate can be made in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, it cannot be made in the case of England.

Mr. REMER: My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) said that no speeches on these Estimates had been made on the other side. I would remind him that three times hon. Members on the other side have risen to speak but on each occasion a Whip from the Front Bench has gone to speak to them.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 224.

Division No. 168.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Gault, Lieut.-Cot. A. Hamilton
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Remer, John R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ross, Ronald D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T,
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colfox, Major William Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Colville, Major D. J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davies, Maj- Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomson, Sir F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Train, J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd



Ferguson, Sir John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Captain Wallace.


Fremuntle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Muirhead, A. J.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Foot, Isaac
Lathan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Freeman, Peter
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawrence, Susan


Alpass, J. H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglessa)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Ammon, Charles George
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James


Angell, Sir Norman
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Arnott, John
Gill, T. H.
Leach, W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Gillett, George M.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Glassey, A. E.
Lees, J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gossling, A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Barr, James
Gould, F.
Lindley, Fred W.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gray, Milner
Longbottom, A. W.


Benson, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longden, F.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Birkett, W. Norman
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brothers, M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McElwee, A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Burgess, F. G.
Hardie, George D.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Burgln, Dr. E. L.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacLaren, Andrew


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Calne, Derwent Hall.
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Cameron, A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Manning, E. L.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marcus, M.


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Markham, S. F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Herrlotts, J.
Marley, J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Marshall, Fred


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mathers, George


Cove, William G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Matters, L. W.


Cowan, D. M.
Hollins, A.
Melville, Sir James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hopkin, Daniel
Middleton, G.


Daggar, George
Horrabin, J. F.
Milner, Major J.


Dallas, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Montague, Frederick


Dalton, Hugh
Isaacs, George
Morley, Ralph


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jenkins, Sir William
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Devlin, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.


Dukes, C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Duncan, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Murnin, Hugh


Ede, James Chuter
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kelly, W. T.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Egan, W. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oldfield, J. R.


Elmley, Viscount
Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Palin, John Henry
Sexton, Sir James
Tout, W. J.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Townend, A. E.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Viant, S. P.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sherwood, G. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Shield, George William
Walker, J.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watkins, F. C.


Pole, Major D. G.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Potts, John S.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda).


Price, M. P.
Simmons, C. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Quibell, D. J. K.
Sitch, Charles H.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Westwood, Joseph


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
White, H. G.


Richards, R.
Snell, Harry
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ritson, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Rowson, Guy
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sanders, W. S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sandham, E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)



Sawyer, G. F.
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Scott, James
Tillett, Ben
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph



Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS, ETC.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expenses of Pensions, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities awarded to retired and disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to widows and children of such members, including annuities to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of commutation of Compensation Allowances and certain extra-Statutory Payments.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that we can allow this Estimate to go without some explanation from the representative of the Government. I think that a statement should, first of all, be made by the representative of the Government, and I respectfully ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make a statement.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This item of £4,000 is owing to a remarkable fact relating to the Estimate for pensions, compensation allowances and gratuities payable to retired members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, their wives, and their children. The original Estimate was prepared with the assistance of the Government Actuary, but there are some unavoidable uncertainties in all such Estimates, in particular the rate of death of the persons concerned. This year the death-rate of pensioners
has fallen to a slight extent below the rate upon which the Estimate was made, which was in accordance with the experience of previous years. As a result of that—the amount is only one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total Estimate—it is necessary to bring forward the Supplementary Estimate. I am sure hon. Members will realise that it would have been improper to have some to the Committee with the original Estimate based on a larger expectation of life than usual. It is because the estimate of the Government Actuary has not been fulfilled that it is necessary to come to the Committee on this occasion.

Mr. ROSS: There are several points upon which I should like to make some inquiries in connection with this Vote. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us in a short explanation, which. I think, he seemed a little reluctant to give, that this was something it was impossible to foresee and that the Supplementary Estimate which we are now asked to vote was due to an abnormally low percentage of death rate among pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. There are two classes of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and I have recently had occasion to come into touch with a good many old members of that distinguished corps. I can assure the Financial Secretary that, from such experience as I have had of them, their death rate was not abnormally low, but very high. I have known many of these old men who have passed away this year. It must be remembered that there are two classes of
pensioners. There is one class consisting of very much older men, on a very much lower scale of pension, the pre-War Royal Irish Constabulary pensioner, and there is the post-War pensioner. Is it possible for the Financial Secretary to give me some information as to the death rate among the pre-War pensioners, and the percentage of the death rate among those who were pensioned on the post-War terms? Those classes are quite distinct. I should also like to know what was the general average of the percentage of death that was predicted by the Government actuary.
If I call the Government actuary into question, I shall be following the example which has been set to me from another part of the House. I do not propose to treat the Government actuary as sacrosanct. I do not think he is infallible, and I am all the less inclined to think he is infallible when I cast my mind back to a year ago. Then, we had precisely the same state of affairs. We had the time of the House being taken up on a Vote of this kind, owing to a miscalculation by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, owing no doubt to wrong advice which he received from the Government actuary. I had hoped that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might be tempted to profit by his experience, but I misjudged him. We find the situation almost exactly the same to-day, except with one important difference. I would remind the Financial Secretary of what he said when he was producing the almost identical Supplementary Estimate a year ago. On the present occasion he says that it was impossible to foresee that any such additional sum would be required, whereas last year he said that there was very close Budgeting in the Estimate of the previous year.
That would appear to be a rather covert sneer—perhaps, I should not say a sneer—or a criticism of his predecessor in office. If his predecessor in office was out by about the same amount, he had the excuse that he had not the experience of the previous year, whereas the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has had that experience. He thinks that the pensioners die faster than they do, and he budgets accordingly. There are few more serious faults in the financial
control of this country than that we should have erroneous budgeting and wrong estimates year after year, although they may be on trivial amounts and minor points which might be easily avoided, and which would have been avoided if the Financial Secretary had noticed the situation that occurred a year before. I would press him to give some particulars, which he was good enough to give last year, as to what the Government actuary advised as the likely number of pensioners to die, on which the Estimate was based, and what relation that bears to the number who have died. It is a pity that such trivial mistakes should be made and that it should be necessary to take up the time of the House in passing Supplementary Estimates of this kind.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I certainly do not look at this Estimate from any quibbling point of view. It deals with a section of men who are highly respected and honoured. May I compliment the Financial Secretary very sincerely indeed—being a rare compliment it will I expect be even more appreciated—on the close estimate he has made on this Vote. It is roughly within one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total amount. [An HON. MEMBER "No, four-fifths."] My hon. Friend will be able to explain the position in due course, but I think this is a close estimate and we ought not to pass it without making that comment. We have been told that this Vote covers men and children, I am not sure whether it covers their wives and widows. I see at the bottom of the page it says:
The death rate amongst pensioners during the present financial year has been abnormally low.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that this is a Supplementary Estimate and that the questions which he is asking are covered in the main Estimate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was quoting from the Supplementary Estimate. The word "pensioners," apparently, includes men and children, but if my request as regards widows and wives is out of order the Financial Secretary will, of course, he unable to give me a reply.

Mr. MacLAREN: Is there any defence against this kind of boredom?

An HON. MEMBER: Go somewhere else!

Mr. WILLIAMS: There are some people who have only one idea in their mind and they are consequently additionally wearisome. I want to know the cause for this Supplementary Estimate of £4,000. In the original Estimate there is a figure of £564,000 and a revised Estimate of £568,000, an addition of 24,000; but there is an addition of £4,000, apparently, to an Estimate of £675,000. It seems that the sum of £4,000 has been added twice and finally we get a sum of £679,000. I cannot make out how the difference between the £675,000 and the £564,000 arises. There is a gap between these figures about which I should like some explanation. It is a financial gap which appears to appeal to hon. Members. The matter is a little complicated, but I am sure the Financial Secretary will be enabled to enlighten me on the point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that this Supplementary Estimate relates to Subhead A of the original Estimate, and if he looks up Sub-head A of the original Estimate I think he will find it very clearly indicated that this sum relates to members of the Force.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept that position, and I am hopeful that on this occasion I may be able to vote for the hon. Gentleman if he will give me an answer to my points.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I do not think that anyone who knows the conditions under which these men live will object to the Supplementary Estimate. I have spent most of my life in Ireland, and I was stationed in Ireland during the troubles which involved the laying down of the lives of many people such as those for whom we are voting this money to-night. I travelled all over the country and came into touch with many of the old Royal Irish Constabulary, and I know their devotion, their zeal, and their loyalty on every occasion under conditions which made life almost unbearable. I saw their wives and families persecuted by people who did not believe in the British Government. That is a matter which I am not going to enter into to-night, but I saw for myself what
life meant to these people in those days and I feel that the Committee ought to unite joyfully in voting anything in the nature of the pensions or amenities which this Supplementary Estimate represents. There are, however, one or two points on which the Financial Secretary has left us uninformed. I take it that in drawing up an Estimate of this kind some regard is paid to humanitarian considerations, and I would draw attention to the note at the bottom of the Estimate in the White Paper which says in very cynical words that the death rate regrettably—that is the implication—during the present financial year has been abnormally low.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The word "regrettably" does not occur anywhere in this document, and the hon. and gallant Member has no right to put a word of that character into our mouths in this connection.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I certainly withdraw, but I did not use the word "regrettably"; I said that the word was implied in that bald statement The words are:
The death rate …. has been abnormally low.
Does not that infer that it would have been a better state of affairs had it been normally low? Had they said that the death-rate had been happily low, that would have been an indication of the real spirit felt in this Committee towards those who died in the country's service. Why has the death-rate been abnormally low? Has the Financial Secretary taken any steps to find out? Has he taken any steps to find out in what particular parts of Ireland it is lower than others? Is it lower in Ulster than in the Free State? Is it lower in the West than in the East? Ireland depends a good deal on its tourist traffic, and if we can prove that in Ulster the death-rate is lower—I see you rising, Mr. Dunnico, and I yield in advance to your call of "order." The South of Ireland is still an important part of the Empire—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that if the amount asked for is only one-fifth of 1 per cent of the main Estimate, it is not appropriate to go into these details on a Supplementary Estimate so small as the one before us.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept your advice, and will not go against the feeling of the Committee or the Ruling of the Chair, but, as one interested in Ireland, it seems to me that these are points which it would be an advantage to have explained to us. I ask the Financial Secretary when he is framing Estimates that appeal to some of us to give us the information which we regard as vitally important. It would settle any antagonism or questioning in anticipation.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I waited before getting up, because I wondered if the Financial Secretary would give us some of the information that has been asked for. Perhaps we may appeal to him to do so, but there are one or two points I should like to put. Having examined the Estimate with great care, I could not understand what you, Mr. Dunnico, said about it being only one-fifth of 1 per cent. I cannot reconcile that in the least with the figures. It is 24,000 out of a total of a little under £000,000, or two-thirds of 1 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "£300,000 for beet-sugar to-morrow!"] Beet-sugar is not grown on land in places like this. It does seem rather an absurdity when we are dealing with a point of this kind to adopt this procedure, and that, just according as it happens to be a little above or below the ordinary expected death-rate, there should either be an unnecessary surplus or that the time of this Committee should be taken up with a Supplementary Estimate which could be avoided.
The normal practice of any insurance company would be to average out the death rates, and in better years, when the death rate was happily low, to advance the money needed from any reserve that was created, and, when unhappily the death rate was higher and consequently there was a, greater saving, it would be perfectly possible to put the amount so saved to reserve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why did you not do it?"] That is the sort of interruption one gets from hon. Gentlemen opposite. When it comes to a matter of criticism, they seem to think it is sufficient to point to us on this side and ask why we did not do it, as though all they had to do was to follow us in every respect. I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have not improved on their predecessors. This is a matter of ordinary accounting, and
would it not be possible in future to-introduce a system like that in insurance companies? There is one more point. It is really surprising that the Financial Secretary has not replied, but perhaps I may be allowed to clear up the difficulty mentioned by an hon. Member who did not quite realise the difference between the figures of £564,000 and £675,000. Speaking on behalf of the Financial Secretary, if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the original Estimate, he will clear up the difficulty. He will find that the item of £554,000 is the first of a series of items in Vote A—

Mr. ALBERY: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to give a reply on behalf of the Financial Secretary?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not recollect any Standing Order which prevents any hon. Member from replying to another.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: For our guidance for the future I would like to ask whether it is in order for a back bencher to give a reproof to a front bencher?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As I believe I have been referred to may I take the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as more authoritative than that of the hon. Member opposite?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am perfectly ready to accept a correction from a back bencher, and I am sure it will be realised that quite distinguished precedents for it have been produced in the case of the Prime Minister and some of the rebukes administered to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir 0. Mosley).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) was a front bencher and an ex-Cabinet Minister.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Reverting to what I was saying, if the hon. Member takes the total of the additional £564,000, on the next page, it adds up to £1,800,000. If we put in the other sub-heads under this Vote and take into account the Appropriation-in-Aid and take the one from the other we get the total for which the hon. Member asks. But the point really is this, why do they need a Supplementary Estimate of £4,000
in the case of pensions and gratuities to members of the Force enlisted in Ireland when we find that so far as superannuation allowances in England are concerned there is no extra allowance?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to consider whether we could not make a sort of system of—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Equalisation reserves.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will look into that point. I am a little doubtful whether it would be appropriate to our method of accounting, but if I find that it can be worked conveniently in that way, I will arrange for it to be done, because I can see that it will avoid

these Supplementary Estimates. On the other point raised, the two figures are really one. First there is the figure of the increase in the gross figure of the single sub-head, and, secondly, in small type there is the net figure for the whole Vote. One shows the effect of adding £4,000 to the single sub-head. The other figure is the effect of deducting £4,000 from the whole net Vote.

Mr. DIXEY: rose—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 64.

Division No. 169.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Weil)
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gill, T. H.
Lindley, Fred W.


Alpass, J. H.
Glassey, A. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Ammon, Charles George
Gossling, A. G.
Logan, David Gilbert


Angell, Sir Norman
Gould, F.
Longbottom, A. W.


Arnott, John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Longden, F.


Aske, sir Robert
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gray, Milner
Lunn, William


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Barr, James
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
McElwee, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McEntee, V. L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McKinlay, A.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bowen, J. W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hardie, George D.
McShane, John James


Brockway, A. Fenner
Harris, Percy A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bromfield, William
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manning, E. L.


Brothers, M.
Haycock, A. W.
Marcus, M.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marley, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marshall, Fred


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Herriotts, J.
Mathers, George


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Matters, L. W.


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Melville, Sir James


Cameron, A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Middleton, G.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hollins, A.
Millar, J. D.


Charleton, H. C.
Hopkin, Daniel
Milner, Major J.


Clarke, J. S.
Horrabin, J. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cocks. Frederick Seymour
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morley, Ralph


Compton, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.


Daggar, George
Johnston, Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.


Dallas, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Murnin, Hugh


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Devlin, Joseph
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Dukes, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Duncan, Charles
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Ede, James Chuter
Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Palin, John Henry


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Latham G.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Egan, W. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Elmley, Viscount
Lawrence, Susan
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Pole, Major D. G.


Freeman, Peter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Potts, John S.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leach, W.
Price, M. P.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Let, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lees, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Raynes, W. R.
Simmons, C. J.
Wallace, H. W.


Richards, R.
Sitch, Charles H.
Watkins, F. C.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ritson, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wellock, Wilfred


Romeril, H. G.
Sorensen, R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Rowson, Guy
Strauss, G. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Sullivan, J.
White, H. G.


Sanders, W. S.
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sandham, E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sexton, Sir James
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tout, W. J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shield, George William
Townend, A. E.
Wise, E. F.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Viant, S. P.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shillaker, J. F.
Walkden, A. G.



Short, Alfred (Wednetbury)
Walker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling,


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ramsbotham, H.


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ross, Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Salmon, Major I.


Bracken, B.
Grotton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colman, N. C. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Somerset, Thomas


Colville, Major D. J.
Hennesay, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon John Walter
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-
Train, J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dixey, A. C.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.



Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Ferguson, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Wallace.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George



Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MORAY FIRTH (FOREIGN TRAWLERS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Major McKENZIE WOOD: I wish to take the opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment to raise a question regarding which I put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier to-day, namely, the grave damage that has been suffered in the last few days by fishermen in the Moray Firth from foreign trawlers. Feeling along the
Moray Firth is running high at the present time, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is highly desirable, not only that something should be done to stop the damage, but also to reassure the fishermen that something is being done to help them to carry on their peaceful avocation.
The fishermen who have been affected are the cod-net fishermen. Cod-net fishing in the Moray Firth is of comparatively recent growth. It is a method or fishing carried out by the setting up of a long fence of nets fixed to the bottom of the sea, and those nets may stretch, on occasion, to something like two miles. The fishing has become very valuable of recent years, and it is highly desirable that everything possible should be done to enable the fishermen to go on with it and to develop it, particularly at this time of the year when other forms of fishing are not available to them. The great difficulty is the trawling that goes
on in the Moray Firth. Nearly the whole of my lifetime I have heard of the troubles of fishermen in the Moray Firth, and I can remember the time when the law was passed to prohibit trawling altogether.
That law has not been effective against foreigners. It is true that on one occasion a foreign skipper was put in gaol, but he was immediately released at the instance of the Foreign Office, and the present position is that, while British trawlers may not trawl in the Moray Firth, foreign trawlers are allowed to roam at will, and I am sorry to say that they do a great deal of damage. This has happened year after year, and I have raised it in this House before now. Last year, particularly, a great deal of damage was done, and a promise was made by the Scottish Office that they would make a special effort to try to prevent damage during this present season. I am glad to say that the Scottish Office did really make an effort to put matters on a better footing this year than was the case before and I myself was present at a conference at which efforts were made to warn the foreign trawlers as to the position, and to see if by that means the damage could be kept within bounds, if not entirely stopped. I also did my own part in trying to prevail upon the fishermen along the Moray Firth to mark their nets properly. However, in spite of all that has been done, last week-end a number of trawlers came along, and they have done enormous damage to the nets of these fishermen.
It has been said that the fishermen do not always mark their nets as they ought to do, and on that point I would make two observations. In the first place, I doubt if the method of marking is really as effective as it is supposed to be, because, if you have a stretch of nets two miles long, lights or buoys one at each end and one at the middle do not seem to be a very effective marking; but that is what the fishermen are called upon to do; that is the marking which by law they are supposed to carry out. In any case, the great number of fishermen allege that marking has the very opposite effect that is intended, inasmuch as it attracts the foreign trawlers and shows them where the fish are. Apart from that, my information is that a number
of fishermen who on this occasion undoubtedly marked their nets with lights and in other ways have been among the chief sufferers, and, as I have said, enormous damage has been done, a week ago particularly, and I believe it has been going on since.
There are three questions that I want the Government to answer. The first is, what means are they taking to stop the damage that is being done at the present time? Secondly, what means are being taken to ensure that the fishermen may be able to get compensation for damage which they are able to prove, as I believe some of them may be able to prove, by individual trawlers? Lastly, there is the larger question, what are the Government doing to ensure that, by some sort of international action, some proper system will be devised whereby the foreigners will not be able to come into the Firth and have privileges which are not open to our own trawlers? It is an intolerable situation, as everyone must admit, that foreign trawlers should be enabled to do what British trawlers are not allowed to do. For at least 10 years, within my own knowledge, this question has been raised, and the Government have been pressed to take the matter up with the League of Nations. I cannot but believe that if the British Government had pressed the matter as strongly as they ought to have done, we should have been able, by this time, to report some real progress. It is really time that some solid progress was made, because the feeling among the fishermen is running very high indeed, and it is difficult to say what may happen unless they have some assurance that the Government at last are going to do something.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I would like to put one point to the Secretary of State. He knows as well as I do that this question of trawling by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth has been a running sore for 10 years. I do not believe, however many cruisers he sends, that he will get down to the root of this problem, it will be left over, until he can persuade the foreigners to ratify the treaties under which foreign trawlers are permitted to trawl in the Moray Firth, whereas our own trawlers are not allowed to do so. I hope he will tell us whether there is any hope of bringing these treaties under
review, because until and unless we can do that there is no hope of solving the problem.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): It is a, pity that we have such a short time at our disposal for this very important question, but I will attempt to deal with some aspects of the difficulty. To begin with, I am well aware of the large amount of feeling that has been engendered in the Moray Firth in regard to this question. On the other hand, the question raises difficulties of an international character which are not easily disposed of. The Government are not responsible for the difficulties. They have inherited them from previous Governments of the parties to which both hon. Members belong. However anxious we may be to review them, we have to consider what the reflex action of their removal would mean in other directions. The Government fully recognise the difficulty that arises in connection with fishing in the Moray Firth, and will do all in their power to prevent or to reduce the damage to the fishermen's gear. This fishing is conducted during the early part of each year at a considerable distance from the shore and, I understand, well outside the three mile limit. The practice of the fishermen is to shoot the nets and leave them unattended in the sea for one or more nights. They then return and haul the nets and go to port with their catch. At this point, I should like to put in this remark—that to leave the nets unattended for one or more nights seems rather risky. The trouble which has arisen during recent years is due to the fact that foreign trawlers visit the Moray Firth at the same period for the purpose of catching the spawning cod, and the complaint is that some of these trawlers destroy the nets by working the ground where the nets are laid. It is the case that in recent years considerable damage has been done to the nets and the gear of the cod net fishermen, and it appears that damage to a considerable amount has been done during the past fortnight or so. Foreign trawlers in present circumstances without reference to international arrangements cannot be prevented from working in the waters of the Moray Firth outside the three-mile
limit. Therefore, if the fishermen leave their cod nets in these waters they have only the same rights of protection as they would have in any other part of the North Sea outside the three-mile limit.
We have been asked what we have been doing with regard to this matter. First let me say that as the North Sea Convention has rather a restricted application to this matter, the Government have made efforts to procure additional protection for the cod net fishermen by seeking the good offices of the Governments of the countries from which these trawlers come, namely, Belgium and Holland. Each year, before the commencement of the cod fishing season, the Foreign Office, at the request of my Department, have asked the Netherlands and Belgian Governments to advise their trawlers to take precautions to avoid the cod nets if possible. Each year there has been a favourable response, but on several occasions it has been pointed out by these foreign Governments that if the cod nets are left unattended without proper marks and lights, it is impossible for the foreign trawlers to avoid them. In addition to the steps that have been taken with foreign Governments, we have issued regulations for the cod net fishermen to marks the buoys and to light their nets, so that the foreign trawlers can see them and avoid them. If I had time I could tell hon. Members what has occurred in regard to the regulations that we have attempted to get the fishermen to observe.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: What about the question of compensation?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have not time to go into that question now. In addition to these two very important things we have been doing, we are closely examining what has occurred within recent days with a view to having this question fully discussed from the point of view of more precautions being taken by foreign trawlers and also from the point of view of seeing whether it is not possible for us to secure compensation—

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.